CCE Vs. M/S. PARAS MOTORS MFG. CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are directed against order in appeal No. SKSS/272/DMN/SDMN/2010 -11, dt. 08.12.10. Appeal No. E/157/11 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. Appeal No/E/392/11 is 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. E/CO/83/11 is filed by the assessee against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

(2.) NONE appears on behalf of the appellant despite notice. On perusal of the records, I find that this matter was listed on the board on 23.10.12 & 14.12.12 on which dates the matter was adjourned on the request of the appellant and the matter got listed on 01.02.13. On that day, the consultant appeared for the appellant and he was informed about the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and the copy of the same was served to him to study the same and make his submissions today. Today when the matter was to be heard, the ld. counsel is absent nor there is any request for adjournment. I take up the appeal filed by the appellant for disposal despite there being no representation from the appellant.

(3.) I perused the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and also the cross objection filed by them. I find that the appellant has been contended 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 and Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. : 2008 (223) ELT 69 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.