TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on sales commission services as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether the clarificatory explanation operated retrospectively; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand; (iii) whether personal penalty was sustainable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on sales commission services as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether the clarificatory explanation operated retrospectively.
Analysis: The amended explanation to Rule 2(l) states that sales promotion includes services by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. The amendment was treated as clarificatory. Reliance was placed on the settled view that such clarification covers commission-based sales services and applies retrospectively. The departmental circular also recognised admissibility of credit on sale of dutiable goods on commission basis.
Conclusion: Cenvat credit on sales commission services was held admissible and the denial of credit was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.
Analysis: The credit was availed on the basis of a bona fide belief that it was admissible, and no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was established.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be inapplicable.
Issue (iii): Whether personal penalty was sustainable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis: Since the underlying credit demand was not sustainable, the basis for alleging involvement in availment of inadmissible credit also failed.
Conclusion: The personal penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand in law, and the appellants obtained complete relief against the credit demand and the connected penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory amendment expanding the scope of input service is to be applied retrospectively, and where credit is availed under a bona fide belief without suppression of facts, the extended limitation and derivative penalty cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
