2019 (2) TMI 1485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nadmissible credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Section 11A(1) of the Act and also imposed penalties. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all the five appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the five appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Involved CENVAT credit demanded Penalty imposed E/21375/2018 January - July 2013 Rs.32,72,273/- Rs.33,000/- E/21376/2018 August 2013 to April 2014 Rs.35,72,384/- Rs.36,000/- E/21377/2018 May to December 2014 Rs.35,93,828/- Rs.36,000/- E/21378/2018 January to September 2015 Rs.38,34,961/- Rs.40,000/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also upheld the demand as stated in the table along with penalties. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants have appointed FMGIL as the 'Sole Selling Agent' for marketing and promoting the products of the appellant which is covered under the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR. He also referred to the terms of the agreement and as per the agreement, the duties of FMGIL includes promoti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4.1 He also submitted that the services provided by commission agent under 'Business Auxiliary Service' have been recognised as an integral part of the manufacture and sale of goods. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Board Circular No.943/04/2011-CX dt.29.4.2011 • Wadpack Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2013 (293) ELT 400 (Tri.-Bang.) • CCE, Ludhiana vs. Ambika Overseas: 2012 (25) STR 348 (P&H) 4.2 Further, he also submitted that the Board Circular NO.96/85/2015-CX dt.7.12.2015 has clarified that the decision in the case of M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported in 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.) applies in the case where the agent is undertaking only sales and no sales promotion ....