AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1985. They availed input service credit during the period October 2007 to February 2008 on sales commission in respect of service rendered abroad. A Show Cause Notice dt.29.10.2009 was issued proposing to deny the CENVAT Credit on sales commission. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant fairly submits that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Ludhiana Vs Ambika Overseas 2012 (25) STR 348 (P&H) held in favour of the Appellant that the services provided by the overseas commission agent for canvassing and procuring of order are within the ambit of definition of inp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., on merit, should be followed by this Bench. Regarding the demand of tax is barred by limitation, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that there is no material available that during the material period, the Appellant had a reason to bonafide belief that the Appellant was eligible for credit. He submits that all the decisions have come after the period of dispute. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we agree with the submission of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue on merit that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd (supra), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, held that CENVAT Credit on overseas c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evade payment of duty, the extended period of limitation of 5 years would be invoked. The Adjudicating authority observed that there was no bonafide belief on the part of the Appellant that the Appellant is eligible to take CENVAT Credit. In view of the various decisions of the Tribunal, Boards Circular and the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it is clearly evident that there is sufficient material to take up the view that the Appellant was holding a bonafide belief of the admissibility of CENVAT credit on overseas sales commission. We have also noticed that the Appellant has taken the credit and duly recorded in the CENVAT account. Thus, there is no material available to invoke the extended period of limitation. Accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a detailed examination of the material was done, it was realised that the respondent-assessee had availed Cenvat credit on the services of all the three categories. The respondent-assessee has rightly pointed out that all the service providers charge the service tax on all the three services and such services since were rendered at the port of export, which was the place of removal, the services were in relation to manufacturing activities as far as the first two services are concerned. However, insofar as the third service where this Court has held in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee, we are of the opinion that the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue in absence of any material to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment of duty. However, we find that during the period of dispute, the Boards Circular No.378/11/98-CX, dt.12.3.98 and No.671/62/2000-CX, dt.9.10.2002 were in favour of the appellant, as these circulars clarified that sales tax/VAT collected by an assessee but retained and not paid to the Government is not includible in the assessable value. Not only this, there were several judgments of the Tribunal on this issue which were in favour of the appellant company, the last other judgment being in the case of Super Synotex (India) Ltd. (supra) which was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court vide judgment reported in 2014 (301)ELT 273 (SC). In view of the Boards Circular and the judgments of the Tribunal, which were in favour of the appella....