9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBAI] and M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA [ 2014 (9) TMI 820 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. Since the issue is no longer res-integra and covered by the earlier decisions of tribunal, we respectfully follow the earlier orders, and remand this matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of limitation - In respect of all other issues including interest and penalties we agree with the findings in the impugned order subject to re-quantification of same depending on the findings on the issue of limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/85600/2014 - A/85796/2019 - Dated:- 25-1-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They were availing CENVAT Credit in respect of input services received by them for providing output service. They had availed the CENVAT Credit in respect of common input services used for providing taxable and exempted services. 2.3 On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant, it was observed that for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 they had availed and utilized the CENVAT Credit in respect of input services used for providing both taxable and exempted services. no amount was shown against column F(1)(c)(ii) i.e. Amount received (paid) towards exempted service . Against column 5A(a) i.e . Whether providing any exempted or non taxable service? they had stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2.8 Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, they have filed this appeal before us. 3.1 In their appeal they have challenged the impugned order on following grounds- i. They were under bonafide belief that they were entitled to avail whole of the Credit as first time sub- rule (3B) to Rule 6 was inserted by Notification No 3/2011-CE (NT), restricting the Credit availment by Banking and Financial Services providers. ii. In case of Hello Mineral water Pvt Ltd vs UOI [2004) 174 ELT 422 (All)] it has been held that reversal of proportionate credit subsequently would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfillment of obligation under Rule iii. Demand made for extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1169 (T-Kol)] ii. HDFC Bank Ltd [2018-TIOL-3516-CESTAT-MUM] 5.3 Para 5, 11 12 of the decision in case of HDFC Bank where the issues for consideration and the findings of the bench have been recorded is reproduced below: 5.0 We have considered the submissions made. Issues involved in the Appeal are as follows- i. Whether the income earned from Cash Credit, Over Draft and Bill Discounting would be regarded as exempted service under Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; ii. Whether the Appellant would be required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed in respect of CC/ OD services; iii. Whether the demand is barred by limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter only on the ground of limitation and re-determine the amount of CENVAT Credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A)(c) along with the interest under Section 75 and penalties to be imposed. 5.4 Since the issue is no longer res-integra and covered by the earlier decisions of tribunal, we respectfully follow the earlier orders, and remand this matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of limitation. In respect of all other issues including interest and penalties we agree with the findings in the impugned order subject to re-quantification of same depending on the findings on the issue of limitation. 6.1 Appeal filed is accordingly allowed by remand to adjudicating authority to consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
