Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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