Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1550

Whether the assessee eligible to avail service tax credit on commission paid to the commission agents?

Case:- C.C.E., Vs. M/s Paras Motors Mfg. Co. & M/s Paras Motors Mfg. Co. Vs CCE.

Citation:- 2013-TIOL-525-CESTAT-AHM

Brief Facts:- The appellant has availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents for the sale of their goods. It is also noticed that the appellant is to indicate the said availment of credit in their returns which has been filed with the authorities. The audit party took an objection that appellant is not eligible for such credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents as per the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued which after due process of law was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the reversal of the cenvat credit availed of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents and also directed to pay the interest on the said amount and imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with the Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by such an order appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and upheld the confirmed demands by the department by reducing the penalty 25% if the amount of penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of the order in appeal. Thereafter an appeal has been filed by the department against the impugned order only on the ground that the first appellate authority has extended the benefit of partial payment of penalty as per provisions of Section 11AC and their appeal seeks for enhancement of 100% penalty. There is also an Appeal filed by the assessee for setting aside the impugned order which has denied them the cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents and also filed Cross objection by the assessee against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Appellant’s Contention:- None appears on behalf of the appellant despite notice but contention of the appellant as their grounds of appeal raised and also from cross objection filed by them is that the cenvat credit availed by them on the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents is eligible as cenvat credit has been upheld by the various decisions of this bench. It is also the contention of the appellant that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468 =(2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB)and Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (223) ELT 69 =(2007-TIOL-723-CESTAT-MUM)which indicates that any services which are rendered in connection with the business of the assessee, service tax paid on such amount is eligible for availing the cenvat credit. As regards the penalty imposed, it is their claim of the appellant no penalty is imposable as appellant has been filing the returns with the authorities as a manufacturer indicating therein the cenvat credit availed by them and there was no objection to the said such credit till the audit party took a different view.

Respondent’s Contention:- The respondent submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. in tax appeal No.353 of 2010 and 204 of 2011 = 2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST has held that service tax paid on the commission paid to an agent is not eligible as cenvat credit. He would submit that the department's appeal is for the enhancement of penalty to 100% as the assessee has not divulged to department that they had availed cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents. It is also his submission that this suppression/ misstatement of the facts in order to avail ineligible cenvat credit.

Reasoning of Judgment:- Tribunal heard both the parties considered the submissions made at length by the respondent and also perused the records. At the outset, Tribunal finds that as regards the eligibility to avail cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission to the commission agents, the same now stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) wherein their lordships have held that such service tax is ineligible for availment of cenvat credit on this issue, on merit, Tribunal find that the appellant has no case and the appeal to that extent is rejected.

The Tribunal also finds that the appellant is liable to pay the interest on the amount of service tax credit taken by him and utilised during the material period. To that extent also, the appeal of the appellant is rejected.

 

The Tribunal finds in regards the penalty imposed, both the lower authorities have imposed the equivalent amount of penalties on the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal find the strong force in the contentions raised by the appellant in grounds of appeal, as to that during the relevant period, there were decisions which indicated that service tax paid on the commission to the commission agents is eligible for availment of cenvat credit and accordingly appellant availed the cenvat credit. It is also undisputed that the appellant is a manufacturer and was filing regular monthly ER-1 returns to the authorities and indicating therein availment of such cenvat credit. In Tribunal’s view, the action of the appellant in taking the cenvat credit of the service tax to the commission agents could be out of bonafide belief as to eligibility to cenvat credit as it is in relation to the business of manufacturing and selling. Tribunal finds that the said bonafide belief of the appellant cannot be considered as erroneous and that too, to invoke the extended period of limitation for imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. In Tribunal’s view, the appellants have made out a case for setting aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, Tribunal set aside that portion of the order which imposes equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appeals are disposed of as indicated herein above i.e. assessee's appeal allowed partly and department's appeal is rejected and the cross objection filed by the assessee is also disposed of.

Decision:- Appeal party allowed

Comment:-The substance of this case is that the credit availed onservice tax paid on the commission to the commission agents would be liable to reversal of Cenvat credit as per decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. wherein it has been held that such service tax is ineligible for availment of cenvat credit. However, it is also clear that equal penalty under Section 11AC should not be impossible in view of the bonafide belief of the assessee that credit is admissible.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com