<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (4) TMI 561 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420895</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision disallowing Cenvat credit on sales commission, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal found that sales commission qualifies as an eligible input service linked to sales promotion and manufacturing activities, emphasizing the direct nexus between sales commission, sales, and subsequent manufacturing. The Tribunal also held that the retrospective effect of the Explanation in Rule 2(l) covers the period preceding the amendment, supporting the eligibility of sales commission as an input service. The Appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred under Section 11A(4) was accepted, leading to the grant of consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:38:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 561 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420895</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision disallowing Cenvat credit on sales commission, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal found that sales commission qualifies as an eligible input service linked to sales promotion and manufacturing activities, emphasizing the direct nexus between sales commission, sales, and subsequent manufacturing. The Tribunal also held that the retrospective effect of the Explanation in Rule 2(l) covers the period preceding the amendment, supporting the eligibility of sales commission as an input service. The Appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred under Section 11A(4) was accepted, leading to the grant of consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>