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 →

Liebherr Machine Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II

2016 (8) TMI 434 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Cenvat credit - entitlement - Whether the Commission Agent Services would be classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service as per Department or Sales Promotion service as per appellant - Held that:- the services in question cannot be called commission agency services for sales. When all the activities of M/s. Francis Klein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., are considered, it is clear that they are engaged in promotion of sales for the products manufactured by the appellants. Here the agreement says that appellants .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

covered by definition of input services given in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Therefore the appellants would be entitled to the cenvat credit for the service tax paid for these input services in question. - Decided in favour of appellant - ST/74/2011-DB - Final Order No. 20272 / 2016 - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Smt Rukmani Menon, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Mohd Yusuf, AR ORDER Per: ASHOK .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Section 11AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The appellants viz. M/s. Liebherr Machine Tools India Pvt. Ltd. are before this Tribunal against the above order of Commissioner with the request to set aside the said order with consequential relief. 2.1. The appellants mainly argue that the input services in question are actually in the category of Sales Promotion relating to their business of manufacturing the said machinery viz. gear hobbing machines .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use 2 saying they will pay commission of 6.5% to M/s. Francis Klein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., and further she refers to Clause 6(i) that the appellant would provide Francis Klein with complete catalogues, brochure books, circular for promoting the sale of their products. 2.1.1. The learned advocate also refers to Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Ambika Overseas [2012 (25) S.T.R. 348 (P&H)], saying that canvassing and pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

td. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - I 3. Revenue represented by learned AR, Shri Mohd Yusuf argues that the input services in question availed by the appellants are more in the nature of Commission Agent for the sales and cannot be called as services for sales promotion only. He has referred to the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (30) S.T.R 3 (Guj.)] saying that commission paid to the agents for the sales cannot be part of the definition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent have been considered. The services in question cannot be called commission agency services for sales. When we examine and consider all the activities of M/s. Francis Klein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., it is clear that they are engaged in promotion of sales for the products manufactured by the appellants. Here the agreement says that appellants would provide them complete catalogue instruction books, circulars for promoting sales. It also says that the appellants will execute orders promptly placed b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

products being manufactured by the appellants. The decision of this Tribunal in Bhuruka Gases Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore I referred to by the appellants has discussed in detail sales promotion activity. For better appreciation we reproduce para 7 of the said order: 7. Now the question to be considered is whether in this case the agents have undertaken sales promotion activity or not. If the answer is yes, the credit would be admissible and otherwise no. The learned CA relied upon the letter written .....

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