TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, I also hold in view of the sales promotion expenses duly recorded in the Books of Accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business, as found by the Revenue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue-appellant. - E/70758/2016-EX[SM] With Stay Application No. E/Stay/70398/2016 - 71069/2016 - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri D.K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner, (AR), for Appellant Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the Revenue -Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Meerut-II, against Order-in-Appeal No. HPU/EXCUS/000/APPL-I/30/2016-17 dated 25/04/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 46,12,034/- availed on Service tax paid on commission and brokerage paid to dealer/agent/broker for sale of their finished products should not be demanded and recovered from them under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest. Further, penalty was also proposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner along with interest and equal penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved the appellant preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect. The ld. Commissioner also took notice that the respondent assessee had incurred the commission expenses or sales promotion expenses paid to Commission Agents for procuring orders and promoting sales of sugar and the same have been debited under sale promotion account. 4. The ld. A.R. relies on the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. He, further, states that the explanation will have prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Accordingly, for the period prior to 03/02/2016 being the date of Notification No. 2/2016 CE (N.T.) the respondent assessee have been rightly denied the benefit of Cenvat credit on sales promotion expenses and prays for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. 5. The ld. advocate for the respondent assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, under the facts and circumstances of this appeal it is evident that there can be no removal of the final products unless the assessee has sales orders in their hands. Thus, I hold that the sales commission/sales promotion expenses incurred by the appellant is expenditure or input service incurred or received prior to the removal of their final product. Accordingly, the said expenditure is allowable as an input service. Accordingly, I also hold in view of the sales promotion expenses duly recorded in the Books of Accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business, as found by the Revenue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable. 7. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The respondent assessee will be entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
