TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri L. Badrinarayanan, Advocate for appellant Shri D. Nagvenkar, Addl. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 06-09/STC-III/SKD/15-16 dated 10.07.2015. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Appellant herein is an Asset Management Company, holding service tax registration and discharging service tax liability under the category of Banking Financial Services, Business Auxiliary Services Business Support Services Management Consultancy Services and Sponsorship Services. It is noticed by the lower authorities during the course of audit of records of the appellant, that they had discharged service tax liability under reverse c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants are nothing but a Asset Management Company of the said Mutual Fund. 5. We agree with the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd.- 2016-TIOL-756-CESTAT-MAD. While arriving at a conclusion that if the commission paid for brokerage is eligible to avail the CENVAT credit, the Bench considered various decisions of the High Courts as also the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations Act, 1996. We reproduce the ratio which is in paragraphs 12 and 13. 12. The second appeal relates to availment of credit on brokerage fee and we find that during the period under dispute the levy of service tax is on the commission pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larified that assessees have to pay service tax under reverse charge and they are eligible for availing credit. 13. As regards the Revenue's another contention that the document on which credit was availed is not a valid document we find that the issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Vs M.R.F (supra). The relevant paragraph of the above High Court's order is reproduced as under :- 6. The aforesaid issue involved in these appeals, is no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, v. Essel Pro-pack Ltd. reported in 2007 (8) S.T.R. 609 (Tri- Mumbai)= 2007-TIOL-1643-CESTAT-MUM wherein it was held as under : .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 759 (P 11) held that if the duty paid has the character of inputs and their receipt in manufacturer's factory and utilization in manufacture of final product is not disputed, then the credit cannot be denied to such person. It is also to be noted that the Departments Circular dated 19. November, 2001 observes that once the duty payment is not disputed and it is found that the documents are genuine and not fraudulent, then the manufacturer would be entitled to CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs. 9. In the present case, the authorities below have accepted that the respondents are entitled to such Cenvat Credit. The only point for consideration, in such circumstances is the type of document requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s decision is squarely applicable to the present case as Hon'ble High Court reaffirmed and followed the Bombay High Court decision and Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court decision. Therefore, by respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, we hold that appellants are eligible for taking credit on the service tax paid by them on brokerage commission and the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside. Since the appellants succeed on merits, we do not go into the limitation issue. 5.1 In view of the foregoing ratio the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
