CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Vishal Pipes Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise
FINAL ORDER NOS. 292 of 2012-SM (BR) &
S-266 of 2012-SM (BR)
APPLICATION No. E/STAY/2935 of 2011-SM
APPEAL NO. E/2243 of 2011-SM
MARCH 22, 2012
ORDER
1. None present for the appellant. Ld. DR is fair to state that in appeal No. 2243 the only issue involved is commission paid to consignment agent suffering service tax shall whether enable the appellant to get cenvat credit of such tax paid. Reading para 4.1 and 2 of the appellate order he states the same.
2. Heard Id. DR.
3. There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
4. Ld. DR at this stage points out that in the finding of Id. Commissioner (Appeals), it comes out that there was no evidence adduced in respect of claim. It may be stated that he has nowhere stated in the order as to whether the goods had gone from the consignor to consignee. So also he did not detach the consignment agent from the consignor’s relation. The finding on production of evidence although is of relevance, law also requires is that the service should be relevant and integrated. When the chain of distribution of goods is not disputed, impugned order does not get approval which is passed mechanically. In view of the above, pre-deposit is waived and appeal is allowed.
