2014 (3) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent : Ms Sridevi, Adv. PER : Mathew John In this appeal, the dispute is about CENVAT credit of Rs.8,74,616/- taken during the period May, 2008 to Nov.'08 by the respondent, on service tax paid by the respondent as a recipient of service, from their agents located in Germany. The service provided by the agent was actually sales promotion, handling, storage, assembly, logistics, quality servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs Ambika Overseas reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R 348 (P&H). He also relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Vs Nilkamal Crates & Bins reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R 431 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 2. The argument of Revenue is that the decision in the case of Nilkamal Crates & Bins (supra) was with reference to the services....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the court. 3. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the services of Commission Agent is only a sub-group of services covered by definition of "Business Auxiliary Services" defined in Section 165(105) (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. She argues that there is no reason why the services other than that of Commission Agent in the said entry should be treated on a di....