9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C/1054/2009-Mum. November 2005 to February 2006 3. C/1055/2009-Mum. September 2006 to October, 2006 4. C/1056/2009-Mum. March 2006 to August, 2006 Since the issue involved is same, all the appeals are being decided together. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants have availed CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on various taxable services received from Foreign Commission Agents who do not have any office in India. The Foreign Commission Agents were providing service in relation to sale of excisable goods for export and charged an amount as commission from the appellants, who make the payment and paid service tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act. Four show cause notices were issued to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-appeal is clearly contrary to the clarification given by the Board contained in Board Circular No.345/1/2008-TRU dt. 27.6.2008. He also submitted that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Board Circular of 2005 and have not taken into account the clarification of June 2008 which covers as the appellants case. He also relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Ambika Overseas, reported in AIT-2011-379-HC, in which the assessee was allowed to avail the CENVAT credit on the services provided by Overseas Commission Agents (provided in relation to canvassing and procuring of orders) as input services. 4. The learned Appraiser (A.R.) for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service". There is no doubt that appellants are manufacture of excisable goods and in such a case Board Circular of 2008 will prevail over Circular of 2005. 6. I also find that the issue was further confirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Ambika Overseas (supra) where the High Court has held that the CESTAT was correct in holding that the respondent is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit on the services provided by Overseas Commission Agents (provided in relation to canvassing and procuring of orders) as input services. In view of the Board Circular 2008 and as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
