TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants stay on pre-deposit requirement for Cenvat credit demand, highlighting valid arguments</h1> <h3>Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida</h3> Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 695 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Dispute over Cenvat credit eligibility for advertisement and sales promotion services in relation to manufacturing panmasala in retail pouches and 100 gram tin packs under PMPM Rules, 2008.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Dispute Overview:The appellant company, manufacturing panmasala in retail pouches and 100 gram tin packs, faced a dispute regarding duty liability discharge and Cenvat credit eligibility. The disagreement arose from advertisement and sales promotion services received by the appellant, specifically for the panmasala sold in 100 gram tin packs.2. Appellant's Arguments:The appellant contended that the advertisement services were solely for sales promotion of the panmasala in 100 gram tin packs, distinct from the panmasala in retail pouches. They argued that the two products catered to different consumer segments, justifying separate treatment. Additionally, they highlighted Rule 15 of PMPM Rules, 2008, emphasizing that the prohibition on Cenvat credit pertained to inputs directly used for manufacturing notified goods, not for general business activities like advertisements.3. Department's Stand:The Department opposed the appellant's claim, asserting that both panmasala variants were essentially the same product. They argued that the advertisement services, even if focused on the 100 gram tin packs, inadvertently promoted sales of the panmasala in retail pouches. Referring to Rule 15 of PMPM Rules, 2008, the Department contended that Cenvat credit disqualification extended to services influencing overall sales, irrespective of packaging differences.4. Tribunal's Decision:After considering both sides' submissions and examining the facts, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. They noted that the advertisement services were business-related and not directly linked to manufacturing the panmasala. The Tribunal interpreted Rule 15 of PMPM Rules, 2008, as restricting Cenvat credit solely for inputs used in manufacturing notified goods, not for general business expenses like advertisements. Moreover, they acknowledged the distinct consumer bases for the two product variants, supporting the appellant's case for separate treatment.5. Outcome:Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a stay on the requirement for pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty. They allowed the stay application, recognizing the appellant's prima facie case and the validity of their arguments regarding Cenvat credit eligibility for advertisement and sales promotion services related to panmasala in 100 gram tin packs.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's position, emphasizing the nuanced distinctions between the two panmasala product variants and the permissible scope of Cenvat credit disqualification under Rule 15 of PMPM Rules, 2008.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
