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>Appellant denied service tax refund on agent commission for export - Tribunal clarifies input service criteria</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd - TMI Issues involved:Appeal against order-in-appeal for refund of service tax on commission to agents utilized for export of goods.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Refund of service tax on commission to agents for export of goodsThe appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that set aside the original order rejecting the refund claim of service tax paid on commission to agents used for exporting goods. The appellant, a 100% EOU, sought a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority denied the refund, stating the services were not used in manufacturing the exported products. The first appellate authority, however, accepted the appellant's arguments and allowed the appeal, leading to the revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Interpretation of input service definitionThe Tribunal referred to a Gujarat High Court case to analyze the definition of 'input service' in the context of sales promotion and business activities. The court clarified that services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing final products or their clearance qualify as input services. It emphasized that commission paid to agents for sales does not fall under this definition unless it is related to sales promotion activities. The court also discussed the inclusivity of 'activities relating to business,' stating they must be analogous to listed activities like accounting or auditing. Since the services of commission agents did not align with these illustrative activities, they were deemed ineligible for CENVAT credit.Conclusion:Considering the judicial precedent and the interpretation of input services, the Tribunal found the appellant ineligible for a refund of service tax paid on commission to agents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of aligning services with the defined criteria for claiming refunds or credits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
