Case Law Details
ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad)
In view of the above, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amount of cenvat credit which needs to be disallowed, the interest thereon and the appropriate penalty as follows:
(i) while computing the amount of cenvat credit on common input services the value of input services, if any, used exclusively for providing taxable services must be excluded.
(ii) The appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit on the input service used for payment of agency commission whether such commission is towards payment of AMCs or towards procuring orders.
(iii) The value of services if any covered by Rule 6(5) of CCR, 2004 cannot be treated as common service since Rule 6(5) prevails over Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2). The appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of such amounts without any proportionate reversal unless such services are used exclusively for rendering exempted services.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
