9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -a-Cab Services - Insurance Services - Held that:- These services are held to be eligible for Credit in the assessee’s own case in RR DONNELLEY INDIA OUTSOURCE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX [2017 (3) TMI 16 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - credit allowed. Time limitation - Held that:- The allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice is that Credit is not admissible for the reason that the invoice is addressed to the erstwhile name of the company. An another unit had merged with the present assessee and therefore, there was some difference in the name and address of the assessee. The said reason cannot be a ground for rejection of Credit when there is no dispute with regard to the payment of service tax or avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 'Department'. 2.1 Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in providing various services like Treasury Management Services, General Accounting Services, Business Information Services, Financial Analytics, Strategic Market Research, etc. With effect from 01.04.2007 another unit, namely, M/s. Office Tiger Database Systems India Pvt. Ltd. registered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services, Banking and Financial Services, Manpower Recruitment Agency Services and Maintenance and Repair Services merged with the assessee-company pursuant to the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 23.07.2007. 2.2 During the course of audit of accounts of the assessee-company, it was noticed that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,776/- 82,417/- 1,55,193/- 5. Denial of Credit on Insurance Service 1,35,089/- 1,35,089/- * DCW Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Tirunelveli - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 774 (Tri. - Chennai) * C.C.E. Vs. HCL Technologies - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 716 (All.) * C.C.E., Bangalore-II Vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 514 (Kar.) 6. Denial of Credit on vendor invoice in which service tax registration number is not mentioned 1,82,432/- 1,82,432/- * CESTAT Bangalore Final Order No. 21421-21422/2016 dated 28.11.2016 (own case) * Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pune-III - 2011 (4) T.M.I. 406 - CESTAT Mumbai 7. Service tax not paid on reimbursement collected from customer 8,73,888/- 8,73,888/- * Union of India & Anor. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee and had allowed the refund in respect of these services. 3.4 Ld. Consultant pointed out that the demand of an amount of ₹ 1,60,45,471/- has been dropped by the Original Authority, against which the Department has filed the present appeals although the Commissioner had dropped the demand on the ground of limitation. It has been held by the Tribunal in the decisions referred to above that the impugned services like Outdoor Catering Services, Rent-a-Cab Services, Air Travel Agent Services and Insurance Services are eligible for Credit. That, on merits itself, the issue is therefore in favour of the assessee. 3.5 With regard to the demand of an amount of ₹ 1,82,432/- alleging that the service provider has not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the Department supported the findings in the impugned Order as well as reiterated the grounds in the appeals filed by the Department. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The period involved is prior to 01.04.2011. The impugned services like Outdoor Catering Services, Air Travel Agent Services, Rent-a-Cab Services, Insurance Services, etc., have been held to be eligible for Credit in the assessee's own case in the Final Orders stated supra. Following the same, we hold that the Credit is eligible. 7.1 The Department has filed appeals against the Order passed by the Commissioner who dropped the demand of ₹ 1,60,45,471/- on the ground of limitation. 7.2 On perusal of records, it is seen that the allegation raised in the Show Cause No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch we hereby do. 10. The differential interest to the tune of ₹ 13,113/- has been demanded alleging that there is a delay in realization of the cheque. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Travel Inn India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that when the cheque has been realized, the date of presentation of the cheque in the treasury should be considered as the date of discharge of service tax as per Rule 6(2A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Following the same, we are of the view that the demand of interest cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 11. From the discussions made hereinabove, we hold that the disallowance of Credit is unjustified and requires to be set aside. The impugned Order, to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
