2016 (3) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent : Ms Reena Khair, Adv   ORDER Per R K Singh The appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 07.04.2011, in terms of which CENVAT credit on input services amounting to Rs. 16,41,448/- for the period from April, 2007 to October, 2008 was disallowed and ordered to recovered along with interest and equal mandatory penalty was also imposed. 2. The brief facts of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvices rendered by sub-brokers would not be eligible to be called input service for the appellant and hence the disallowance of the impugned credit along with interest and penalty. 3. Ld. advocate appearing for the appellant contended that (i) it was not in every case that it paid commission to sub-brokers at a rate higher than the commission received by it as is evident from para 3C and 3F of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aterial after mutual consultation. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand referred to the cross objections filed by Revenue, wherein it is contended that it would be absurd to avail of the services of sub-brokers at a rate higher than the rate of commission received and that is the proof enough to hold that such commission to sub-brokers was paid in respect of goods other than the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ients. I do not find any evidence either in the Show Cause Notice or in the order of lower appellate authority, which indicates that the appellant paid the commission to the sub-brokers in respect of any goods other than the goods for which it received commission. The CENVAT Credit Rules clearly allow credit of such services of sub-brokers because those services were used by the appellant for prov....