https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249673 The Tribunal remanded the case for a detailed review of the appellant's services classification as Cargo Handling Services due to lack of clarity in the impugned order. It decided not to delve into the demand under Business Auxiliary Service as the amount had been deposited. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the demanded amount for CENVAT credit and depreciation, even if remanded. It found the demand for premature credit reasonable and denied service tax credit on bank charges and telephone service due to full payment. The demand related to non-maintenance of separate accounts was rejected based on precedent. The appellant was instructed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within 8 weeks for further adjudication. en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249673 The Tribunal remanded the case for a detailed review of the appellant's services classification as Cargo Handling Services due to lack of clarity in the impugned order. It decided not to delve into the demand under Business Auxiliary Service as the amount had been deposited. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the demanded amount for CENVAT credit and depreciation, even if remanded. It found the demand for premature credit reasonable and denied service tax credit on bank charges and telephone service due to full payment. The demand related to non-maintenance of separate accounts was rejected based on precedent. The appellant was instructed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within 8 weeks for further adjudication. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249673