9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from 13.03.2007 to 31.01.2008. The appellant, during the said period, was engaged in the manufacture of LPG stoves and parts thereof. These products of the appellant were sold through IOCL's dealers and distributors. The aforesaid commission was paid by the appellant to IOCL on an annual basis. The amount of commission was paid in a given year consisting of a fixed sum plus an additional sum which depended on the sale turnover of stoves. CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the sales commission was taken by the appellant and utilized for payment of duty on their final products. This credit was denied to them by the lower authorities on the ground that the service rendered to them by IOCL did not qualify to be 'input service' defined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ltd. [2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST]. It is argued that, in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's ruling, the CENVAT credit in question is liable to be denied to the appellant. 4. In his rejoinder, the learned consultant for the appellant has made an endeavour to show that the appellant's claim has ever been under the main part of clause (i) of the definition of Business Auxiliary Service and not under the inclusion part of that definition. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court's judgment is with reference to the inclusion part of the definition of 'BAS' and hence cannot affect the appellant's claim of CENVAT credit in this case. The learned counsel has also pleaded limitation against the impugned demand. He submits that the relevant show-cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of input service given under Rule 2(l) ibid. The Hon'ble High Court held that the services rendered by a commission agent would not fall within the ambit of the expression activities relating to business and consequently CENVAT credit would not be admissible on the commission paid to such commission agent. No binding decision to the contra has been cited before us by the learned consultant. The learned consultant has claimed support from the Hon'ble P&H High Court's judgment in Ambika Overseas case. We have perused this judgment and have found that the Hon'ble High Court found no substantial question of law in the departments appeal filed against an order of this Tribunal. On the other hand, a substantial question of law with reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
