Successful appeal allows cenvat credit on commission paid to foreign agent for service tax liability. Member distinguishes case.

The appeal was successful as the Member (Judicial) allowed the appellant to avail cenvat credit on commission paid to a foreign agent for selling final products. The appellant could utilize the credit to discharge the service tax liability, contrary to the Revenue's dispute. The Member distinguished a cited case where a similar credit was disallowed, emphasizing the appellant's provision of output service and manufacturing dutiable products. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was accepted.

---

---

Issues:
- Availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid to foreign commission agent

Analysis:
The appeal in question was against an order-in-appeal dated 10.11.2012 concerning the availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid to a commission agent abroad. The appellant had paid commission to the foreign agent for selling final products and discharged the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism, claiming credit. The Revenue disputed this credit availed by the appellant.

The Chartered Accountant for the appellant referred to a previous decision by the Bench in the appellant's own case where a similar credit was disputed but was held in favor of the assessee. The departmental representative cited a different case involving ITC Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur, where it was held that a person discharging tax liability as the deemed output service provider cannot avail cenvat credit.

After considering the submissions, the Member (Judicial) found that the decision in the appellant's own case from 2.1.2015 allowed the appellant to avail cenvat credit on commission paid to the foreign agent. The appellant was deemed eligible to utilize the credit for discharging the service tax liability, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was unsustainable.

Additionally, the Member noted that the facts in the case cited by the departmental representative were different, as ITC Ltd. was not providing any output service or manufacturing dutiable final products, unlike the appellant. Following the precedent set in the appellant's earlier case, the Member concluded that the appeal had merit and needed acceptance, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

---