Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s N.R. Wires Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

2016 (3) TMI 714 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cenvat credit - service tax paid by the sub-broker - input services for the period from April, 2007 to October, 2008 - Held that:- the CENVAT Credit Rules clearly allow credit of such services of sub-brokers because those services were used by the appellant for providing taxable service on which service tax was paid. Commission paid was higher than the commission received by the appellant may at best raise some suspicion about the same being in respect of certain goods which were not the same on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant : Ms Aastha Gupta, Adv For the Respondent : Ms Reena Khair, Adv ORDER Per R K Singh The appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 07.04.2011, in terms of which CENVAT credit on input services amounting to ₹ 16,41,448/- for the period from April, 2007 to October, 2008 was disallowed and ordered to recovered along with interest and equal mandatory penalty was also imposed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The appellant is a broker/commission agent and had been p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that such commission to sub-brokers was paid in respect of goods other than the goods for which it received the commission as no would pay more commission than it received in respect of same goods and therefore the services rendered by sub-brokers would not be eligible to be called input service for the appellant and hence the disallowance of the impugned credit along with interest and penalty. 3. Ld. advocate appearing for the appellant contended that (i) it was not in every case that it paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gloval Industries Pvt. Ltd. is incorrect because they were the sub-brokers to whom the commission was paid by it. Ld. advocate also drew my attention to the agreements entered into by the applicant with various sub-brokers wherein as per some agreements (for example the agreement entered into with M/s. Pawan Industries) the rate was to be decided at the time of sale, depending on the size, quality and type of material after mutual consultation. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version