CESTAT Bangalore adjusts liability, emphasizes verification of invoices, and remands for fresh decision on service credits.

The CESTAT Bangalore allowed credit on certain services but remanded for verification on others. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification of invoices and classification of services. The appellant's liability was adjusted based on admitted amounts. The Tribunal set aside the order, waived the pre-deposit requirement, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the eligibility of credits taken on various services from May 2008 to March 2011, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

---

---

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.

---