The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Jindal Steel And Power LTD.
Facts
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur (the Revenue) against an order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The CESTAT had allowed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on commission to sales/commission agents. The Revenue had suggested a substantial question of law concerning the justification of this allowance in light of a Gujarat High Court precedent. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the Revenue filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2019) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal.
Held
The Court granted permission to the Appellant/Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided was that upon re-examination, it was determined that no substantial question of law arose in the matter, as per the instructions and circulars referred to by the Revenue. Consequently, the tax case was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the substantial question of law initially framed, as the appeal was withdrawn before any adjudication on its merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the tax case as withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT, New Delhi is justified in allowing the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on commission paid to sales/commission agent in the light of the legal precedence set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of CE Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., reported at 2013 (30) STR (Guj)? Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue): Submitted that an interlocutory application has been filed seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The matter was re-examined, and it was revealed that no substantial question of law arises, as described in paragraph 1.3 of Annexure-C (a circular dated 17.08.2011 read with instructions dated 22.08.2019).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Tax Case No. 57 of 2018 {Arising out of Order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Excise Appeal No. 52884 of 2016 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi} The Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, CGST Bhavan, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Kharsia Road Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Romir S. Goyal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 11/09/2019
This appeal arises from Annexure A/1 order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The following question has been suggested as of substantial question of law:
"
Whether the CESTAT, New Delhi is justified in allowing the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on commission paid to sales/commission agent in the light of the legal precedence set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of CE Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Health
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.