<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1959 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773846</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order regarding CENVAT credit denial for service tax paid on sales commission to domestic marketing agents during April 2011 to December 2014. The tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion services were specifically included in the input service definition under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. CBEC Circular No.943/4/2011-CX clarified that credit is admissible on services for sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. The department cannot argue against its own circular. Extended period of limitation was held inapplicable as the issue was interpretational in nature with transactions properly recorded in specified records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1959 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773846</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order regarding CENVAT credit denial for service tax paid on sales commission to domestic marketing agents during April 2011 to December 2014. The tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion services were specifically included in the input service definition under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. CBEC Circular No.943/4/2011-CX clarified that credit is admissible on services for sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. The department cannot argue against its own circular. Extended period of limitation was held inapplicable as the issue was interpretational in nature with transactions properly recorded in specified records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>