Appellant eligible for Cenvat credit on C&F agent service, denied on commission agent service. Remand on installation credit.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat credit for C&F agent service based on precedent, setting aside the demand. However, the appellant was deemed ineligible for Cenvat credit for commission agent service, with the credit deemed inadmissible. The matter regarding the eligibility for Cenvat credit on erection, installation, and commissioning service was remanded for further discussion by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues involved: Eligibility of the appellants for Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on C&F agent service, commission agent service, and erection, installation, and commissioning service.

Analysis:
1. C&F Agent Service: The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit for C&F agent service. Both parties agreed to follow this precedent, leading to the conclusion that the service tax credit for C&F agent service was correctly taken, and the demand was set aside.

2. Commission Agent Service: In contrast to the C&F agent service, it was determined that the appellant is not eligible for Cenvat credit for commission agent service. The Tribunal noted that until a specific decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, there were differing views on the admissibility of the credit. As a result, the credit for commission agent service was deemed inadmissible and payable with interest if already taken.

3. Erection, Installation, and Commissioning Service: The Revenue raised a concern that the Commissioner did not provide a detailed discussion before concluding that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat credit on this service. The Tribunal found this grievance to be valid and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough discussion and a well-reasoned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the credit taken for C&F agent service was eligible, the credit for commission agent service was not correct and the demand for credit with interest was upheld, and the matter regarding the erection, installation, and commissioning service was remanded for further discussion. The appeal was decided accordingly.

---