Commissioner of CGST, Customs And Central Excise, Alwar Versus M\/s. Lark Laboratories, M\/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 860 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-5-2018
Excise COD Application No. 50342 – 50343 of 2018, Excise Appeal No. 50835 – 50836 of 2018 – A\/51944-51945\/2018-EX[DB], MISC ORDER No. 50305-50306\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M R Sharma. Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Appellants
\nShri Ankit Danial, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, None for Respondent No. 2
\nPer: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
\nDelay in filing the present appeals is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. COD application allowed and appeals are admitted.
\n2. Both the appeals are filed by the department against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 475 & 473 (SM) CE\/JPR\/2017 both dated 22.11.2017.
\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-assessee were a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n er decision in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur I Final Order No. 57218\/2017 dated 10.10.2017 where it was observed that : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ces by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. In other way, Explanation to Rule 2(l) of Rules says in clear terms that there is no bar on availment of the Cenvat credit on sales promotion service by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. Further, by inserting the Explanation in the Rule 2(l), it has confirmed the Board Circular and resolved the different views of the High Courts. Taking into circumstances under which the Explanation was inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and consequences of the Explanation to extend the benefit to the assessee as per Board Circular, we hold that the Explanation inserted 4 in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 2\/2016-CX (N.T.) (supra) should be declaratory in nature and effective retrospectively”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST, Customs And Central Excise, Alwar Versus M\/s. Lark Laboratories, M\/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.Central Excise2018 (6) TMI 860 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 11-5-2018Excise COD Application No. 50342 – 50343 of 2018, Excise Appeal No. 50835 – 50836 of 2018 – A\/51944-51945\/2018-EX[DB], MISC ORDER No. 50305-50306\/2018Central ExciseMr. Justice … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST, Customs And Central Excise, Alwar Versus M\/s. Lark Laboratories, M\/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“After hearing both the parties, we note that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M\/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Udaipur. The Tribunal vide final order No. 56683-56685\/2017 dt. 28.08.2017 held as under:-
\n“4. With regard to availment of Cenvat credit on the commission paid for sale promotion activities, the CBEC vide Circular No. 943\/4\/2011-CX dt. 29.04.2011 has clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis. The said circular was endorsed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 2\/2016-CE (NT) dt. 03.02.2016. In the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had not referred to the Circular dt. 29.04.2011 and also there were divergent views by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In view of the above settled position and law, we do not find any merits in the impugned orders. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, we allow the appeals in favour of the appellants”.
\n6. By following our earlie<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n