2012 (11) TMI 566 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant allowed CENVAT credit on service tax paid to commission agents

Wadpack Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.

The appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on service tax paid to commission agents for the period from April 2005 to June 2007. The court ruled in ... CENVAT credit on Business Auxiliary Service - period in question from April 2005 to June 2007 - Held that:- The claim of assessee is fully supported by the very definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004. Sales promotion expressly figure in the inclusion part of the definition. It is not even the Revenue's case that the appellant was not paying commission for sales promotion. Where a particular activity is expressly mentioned in the inclusion part of the definition, one need not bother to examine whether it has satisfied the ingredients of the main part of the definition as decided in CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Board s Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29.4.2011 (S. No. 5) wherein it was clarified that credit was admissible on the services of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis - in favour of assessee. Issues:Whether the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on service tax paid to commission agents for the period from April 2005 to June 2007.Analysis:In this appeal, the question revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid to commission agents for the period from April 2005 to June 2007. The original and first appellate authorities had ruled against the appellant, stating that the service of the commission agent was for selling the goods of the assessee, not related to the manufacture and clearance of goods from the place of removal.The appellant contended that sales promotion falls within the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. They argued that the payment of commission to sales agents for promoting the sale of finished goods should not be denied the benefit of service tax credit. The appellant highlighted that the aspects of sales promotion were not considered by the authorities, and the plea of limitation was not properly addressed. The appellant also challenged the penalty imposed on them.On the merits of the case, the appellant relied on Board Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX and various case laws to support their claim for CENVAT credit on sales commission. The appellant emphasized that the inclusion of sales promotion in the definition of input service supported their position.The Superintendent (AR) attempted to justify the appellate Commissioner's view but failed to provide any supporting decision. However, after careful consideration, the judge found a strong case for the appellant. The judge noted that the appellant's claim aligned with the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004, where sales promotion was explicitly included. The judge referenced previous judgments and circulars that supported the appellant's position. As no contrary binding decision was presented, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing that the definition of input service encompassed sales promotion, and the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on sales commission was deemed valid based on the established legal framework and precedents cited.