TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Bangalore adjusts liability, emphasizes verification of invoices, and remands for fresh decision on service credits.</h1> <h3>Shivanssh Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I</h3> The CESTAT Bangalore allowed credit on certain services but remanded for verification on others. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification ... Waiver of pre deposit - eligibility of credit taken on various services - classification of service has not been mentioned in the invoice/bill - Held that:- Even though this is not an essential requirement, to decide the nexus and the eligibility, the requirement as to under which service the service received is classifiable and how it is an input service for the appellant will have to be considered and for this purpose it would be necessary to see what was the classification under which tax was paid by service provider. Since for substantial amount, the matter is required to be remanded and a substantial portion has been accepted and not disputed, we consider it appropriate that the requirement of pre-deposit has to be waived and the matter is remanded at this stage itself for fresh adjudication - stay granted - matter remanded back. Issues involved: Eligibility of credit taken on various services from May 2008 to March 2011.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the eligibility of credit taken on various services from May 2008 to March 2011. The show cause notice was issued on 02.04.2012, demanding credit under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 amounting to Rs. 1,36,71,670/- with interest. A penalty of Rs. 1,36,71.670/- was imposed under Rule 15(3) of CCR r/w Section 78 of Finance Act, 1944. The appellant contested a liability of Rs. 127,94,314/- while admitting a liability of Rs. 8,77,356/-.2. The CESTAT Bangalore analyzed the credit taken on various services in detail. The credit on construction services amounting to Rs. 1,20,73,593/- was allowed based on relevant decisions. Similarly, the credit on security services, insurance services, office maintenance service, legal services, service for designing of annual report, telephone service, and services not containing description in invoices were allowed but remanded for verification of invoices in each case.3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant admitted liability wherever there was a dispute or doubt about eligibility or when the documents were not proper. Specifically, attention was drawn to two major items - an amount of Rs. 2,68,372/- on insurance services and Rs. 1,69,243/- on office maintenance services, legal services, and service for designing of annual report. The Tribunal emphasized the need to verify the invoices and classification of services for these amounts before making a decision.4. Considering the substantial amount already accepted and not disputed, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision after observing the principles of natural justice. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the matter was deemed appropriate for fresh adjudication to determine the eligibility of credit taken on various services during the specified period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
