9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 952 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Banking and other Financial Services - services partially exempted vide Notification No. 29/2005-Service Tax dated 22.2.2004 - Held that - Issue is full covered by Jost s Engineering (2013 (8) TMI 463 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and in the case of Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2014 (7) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI), I find that the appellant s case is squarely covered. - reversal of credit by the assessee on the entire common input service credit taken along with interest, amounts to non-availment of credit. Further, the aforementioned ruling was not available before the adjudicating authority at the time of passing of the impugned order and rulings were pronounced subsequently. In this view of matter and after recording the finding that the appellant s case are covered by these two rulings, I remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to verify the amount of CENVAT Credit reversed. If the same is found to be short then the appellant may be allowed an opportunity to reverse the amount alongwith interest. It is also held that the Banking and other Financial Service, which are the output service of the appellant are not fully exempted and accordingly, do not fall under the category of exempt service as defined under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding exemption of services and applicability of Rule 6(3) on partially exempted services. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Availing CENVAT Credit on partially exempted services The appellant, a Co-operative Bank, availed CENVAT Credit on duty paid services, some of which were partially exempted under Notification No. 29/2005-Service Tax. The dispute arose when a show-cause notice alleged that the appellant, having availed input tax on partially exempted services, should either maintain separate accounts or pay output tax under Rule 6(3) on the exempted portion. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand against the appellant, who then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that they had reversed the total CENVAT Credit for common input services, thus no tax was payable under Rule 6(3). Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The appellant contended that their services did not fall under the definition of "Exempt Service" as per Rule 2(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They cited precedents where similar situations were granted relief, emphasizing that reversal of entire common input service credit amounted to non-availment of credit, thus Rule 6(3) was not applicable. The appellant relied on Tribunal rulings and argued against the applicability of Rule 6(3) based on the definition of Exempt Service. Issue 3: Adjudication and Remand The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments, noting that previous rulings supported their case. The Tribunal found that the appellant's situation aligned with precedents, which were not available during the original adjudication. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the amount of CENVAT Credit reversed. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's output services were not fully exempted and did not fall under the category of exempt services as defined in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further verification of the reversed CENVAT Credit amount, emphasizing that the appellant's services did not qualify as fully exempt under the relevant rules.
|
