Tribunal allows CENVAT Credit for foreign commission agent services

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the CENVAT Credit for sales promotion and marketing services from a foreign commission agent and Consulting Engineers service was admissible. The decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents, including Circular No.943/4/2011-CX and relevant court decisions. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for sales promotion and marketing services procured from a foreign commission agent.
2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Consulting Engineers service.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for sales promotion and marketing services obtained from a foreign commission agent. The Revenue contended that the credit should only be allowed when the service is rendered in or in relation to manufacture, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi. However, the Authorized Representative for the respondent referred to Circular No.943/4/2011-CX and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in CCE Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. to support the admissibility of the credit. The Tribunal noted the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd., which upheld the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal, and found that the Ultratech Cement decision was applicable to the present case. Considering these precedents and the Board's view, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal by the Revenue lacked merit and was therefore rejected.

2. Additionally, the case also addressed the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Consulting Engineers service. The Commissioner had allowed this credit, leading the Revenue to appeal the decision. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and ultimately found in favor of the respondent, rejecting the appeal by the Revenue. The decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of input service and the relevant legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents on both issues, holding that the CENVAT Credit for the services in question was admissible based on the legal interpretations and precedents discussed during the hearing.

---