Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1246 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - sales commission paid to their sale agents - the services provided by the commission agents were denied to be the input service - contradictory decisions - matter sub-judice before Apex Court - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court Gujarat in ASTIK DYESTUFF PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [2014 (1) TMI 776 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has relied upon C.C.E., Ahmedabad Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.[2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] however Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA VERSUS AMBIKA OVERSEAS [2011 (7) TMI 980 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] had given a contradictory decision. It is thereafter that the matter was referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequent thereto there has been a CBEC Circular No. 934/4/2011 dated 29.04.2011 vide which the sales promotion activities as mentioned in explanation to Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (as was inserted vide Notification No. 2/2016 dated 03.02.2016) was considered. The said Circular was passed by the Department with a view to resolve the confusion prevalent due to the different views of the above said High Courts. It was clarified therein that an explanation inserted in a Section/ Rule is generally to explain the meaning and intendenments of the said Section/ Rule. Sometimes when the explanation is inserted to clarify a doubtful point of law it would be effectively retrospective in nature. The fact that the matter is still subjudiced before Hon’ble Apex Court due to the contrary decisions from two different High Courts but that the Department has subsequently tried to resolve the confusion, Order is hereby set aside - Appeal dismissed.
|