Sales commission not eligible for CENVAT credit as input service per Cenvat Credit Rules

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sales commission paid to agents is not eligible for CENVAT credit as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, based on precedents and interpretations. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting views on the issue, particularly concerning a retrospective amendment allowing such credit. Pending a High Court decision on this matter, the Tribunal opted for a cautious approach, deferring any recovery or refund actions and granting parties the liberty to return post-High Court judgment. The decision prioritizes consistency with the higher forum's forthcoming ruling.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on sales commission.

Analysis:
The principal issue in the present Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad pertains to the eligibility of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on sales commission. Both the Advocate for the Appellants and the ld. A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue agree that the matter has been previously addressed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of C.C.E. Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & Cus. The Gujarat High Court, in these cases, held that sales commission paid to agents does not fall under the scope of sales promotion mentioned in the definition of ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also considered a Circular issued by the Board, the opinion of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and subsequent amendments to the definition of ‘input service’ through Notification No.2/2016 CE(NT) dated 03.02.2016.

The Tribunal noted that the Division Bench in Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Surat I held that the amendment through the said Notification was clarificatory and retrospective in nature, allowing service tax paid on sales commission to be eligible for CENVAT credit even for periods before 03.02.2016. However, the Revenue challenged this decision before the Gujarat High Court, and the matter is pending consideration. In light of the conflicting views and the pending appeal, the Tribunal decided to follow the principle laid down by a Larger Bench in a previous case and disposed of the present appeals with the liberty for both parties to approach the Tribunal after the High Court’s verdict on the pending appeal against the Division Bench judgment in Essar Steel India Ltd.’s case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized that no recovery or refund would be processed during this period, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The decision reflects a cautious approach in light of the pending appeal before the High Court and aims to maintain consistency with the higher forum’s eventual ruling on the matter.

---