TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in the case of Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2013 (7) TMI 51 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that if there are contrary view of the Apex Court, in that circumstance the Adjudicating Authority is independent to take any view on merits of the case. Therefore, we are taking independent view and hold that appellants are entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be denied to the appellant relying on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II Versus Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported at 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that such commission agents are not engaged in the activity of sales promotion. The said judgment has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Essar Ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission agent who effected the sale of goods manufactured by the appellant. Further, I find that Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Versus Ambika Overseas reported at 2011 (07) LCX 0196 has held that Cenvat credit on service tax paid to selling agent for sale of goods is admissible as Cenvat credit. Therefore, as there are contrary judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
