9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter requires to go back to the original Authority to examine the issue properly - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL NO. ST/86442/2018 - A/88012/2018 - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vinay Jain, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune on 10.01.201. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. are engaged in the business of providing general insurance services and have opted a Service Tax registration. Appellants are also providing services to their clien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given bifurcation of the total credit reversed under the two heads i.e. Jammu Kashmir operations and other related to exempted services. Two separate show-cause notices were issued and confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority. The present appeal in respect of other exempted services for which reversal of credit of ₹ 37,01,553/- was sought by the Department. 2.2 On appeal filed by the appellants before this CESTAT and the CESTAT vide final order No. E/3168/15/SMB dated 11.09.2015 has set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.06.2014 by remanding the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority. CESTAT has given the following direction:- 7. I find that the first Appellate Authority has totally misdirected himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) vide order dated 10.01.2018 has upheld the Order-in-Original, hence the present appeal is directed against the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that General Insurance Service is not exempted service within the meaning of Rule 2(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not get attracted. Exempted service is defined as taxable service which is exempt from whole of Service Tax whereas instant case the appellants are providing partially taxable services and partially exempted output service. Therefore Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted as the input services in question are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of what is required to be reversed. 4.3 Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that in spite of clear direction by the CESTAT learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the fact of excess reversal. He simply held that the appellants did not submit any documents for excess reversal made. This finding is factually incorrect. The working of reversal of CENVAT credit was submitted to the lower Authorities along with ST-3 return on various occasions. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as regularly filing the returns and has no intention to evade payment of duty is evidence, a show-cause notice is clearly time barred. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the Department has reiterated the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case also the appellants have already reversed much more amount than confirmed by the Department. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal have discussed the eligibility of refund of excess credit reversed by the appellants, where as CESTAT direction was to consider that the appellant s case that they are entitled to credit of entire amount of CENVAT paid on input services used in output services on which tax liability was discharged. 6.1 I find that the original Adjudicating Authority had dropped the penalty under Section 78 invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, no finding has been given on the invokability of extended period as to whether there was in positive act on the part of the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
