TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2004 - Held that:- CENVAT credit taken by the appellant with respect to Commission Charges paid to the Foreign Agencies, which was required to be paid under reverse charge by the appellant. The issue was decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare [2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In the present factual matrix, extended period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , paid to the Foreign Agency by the appellant will be admissible under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Shri H.D. Dave (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that on merits the issue has been decided against the assesses by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare - [2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST]. It was the case of the learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue was decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare in the year 2012. In the present factual matrix, extended period of limitation for demanding duty can not be invoked as the appellant was under bonafide belief that such credit on Commission Charges paid was admissible. It is further observed that show cause notice for the years 2005-06 to N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|