2022 (4) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant is availing Cenvat credit on various inputs, input services and capital goods in terms of the provisions as laid down under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Nicco Parks and Resorts Ltd. for sale of their products from the latter's premises. For this purpose, the Appellant paid upfront fees and also made payment based on quantity sold during the period from 1^st April, 2015 to 2nd February 2016. The scrutiny revealed that the Appellant availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on invoices raised by M/s Nicco Park  and Resorts Ltd. towards the sales commission, which accordingly to the show-cause notice, did not qualify as eligible i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service" as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also referred to the Department's Circular No.943/4/2011-CX. dated 29.04.2011 at Sl.No.5 and the Board's Instruction F.No.96/85/2015-CX.I dated 07.12.2015 at Point No.B.30. The Ld.Advocate further submitted that the issue whether the definition of "input service" specified under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it stood prior to 3rd February, 2016, covers sales commission as eligible "input service" and the effect of the Explanation what has been added to the definition w.e.f.03.02.2016. He vehemently submitted that the Explanation inserted under Rule 2 (l) w.e.f. 03.02.2016, has the retrospective effect so as to cover the period upto 03.02.2016. In support of his submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Returns accompanied with the related Cenvat Credit Register, giving whatever particulars required under the law so far as the availment of cenvat credit is concerned, had been regularly submitted. The details of the credit could not be mentioned therein as there was no scope to furnish any such details. He vehemently argued that the Department was not prevented from making up its mind in the matter for issuance of the show-cause notice within the normal period of limitation. In support of his submission, he relied on the various decisions and some of them are as under : (i) 2017-TIOL-463-CESTAT-DEL : CCE,Raipur Vs. M/s Drolia Electro Steel Pvt. Ltd. (ii) 2016-TIOL-1959-CESTAT-DEL : CCE & ST Vs. ZYG Pharma Pvt. Ltd. ....