TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of Taxable and non-taxable services and that the appellants did not pay applicable service tax on various services. A show-cause notice dated 21/10/2008 has been issued to the appellants, Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, and vide order no. 6/2009 dated 26/06/2009 confirmed the demand equal to the credit of Rs. 5,09,85,560/-, wrongfully availed and utilized by the appellants; confirmed service tax of Rs. 51,77,19,571/- and appropriated the tax of Rs. 39,51,99,505/- already paid by the appellants. He also imposed penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of CENVT Credit Rules. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned commissioner erred in holding that various input services are not directly or indirectly related to the output services provided by the appellants; Commissioner has travelled beyond the showcause notice in disallowing CENVAT Credit; whereas the SCN sought to disallow CENVAT Credit on the ground of absence of documents and procedure, Commissioner sought to disallow the credit on the co-relation between input and output services; learned Commissioner erred in including an amount of Rs. 60,29,237/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been maintained and that the appellant are not in possession of duty paying documents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, the Commissioner had passed an order 11/2007, on a show-cause notice covering a period October 2005 to March 2006, and has taken a similar view, however, the said order was agitated before this bench, who vide Final Order No.461/2010 dated 13/01/2010 have remanded the case back to learned Commissioner with the following observations: "5.5. As regards the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the service tax paid on the services received, we find that the appellant today produced a certified copy of the statutory auditors, indicating that, on verification of the records it was found that said service tax liability has been paid by the appellant to the service provider. We are of the considered view that once a statutory auditor gives a certificate, the said certificate should be considered as an evidence of substantiation to the claim for eligibility to CENVET credit. Since, this certificate was produced before us for the first time, we are of the view that this point needs to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Misc. Allowed by CESTAT in Final Order No.20140/2015 dated 12/01/2015 9. IT Services Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 10. Insurance Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 11. Travelling charges Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 12. Professional fee Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 13. Printing charges Allowed by CESTAT in Final Order No.20140/2015 dated 12/01/2015 14. Audit Expenses Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 15. Share Expenses Allowed by CESTAT in Final Order No.20140/2015 dated 12/01/2015 16. Post Expenses Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 2006 vide OIO 11/2007 and OIO 12/2010 17. Club Membership 18. Hotel Charges Allowed in the proceedings for the period October 2005 to September 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgments in the cases of Millipore India Pvt. Ltd., 2011 16 Taxmann.com 363(KAR) and Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., 2011-TIOL-941-HC-KAR-ST, we find that the input services claimed by the appellants are admissible for credit for rendering output services, we find that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that - "There cannot be any quarrel regarding the said proposition of law. As stated therein, the definition of input service is more exhaustive than input. Whether it is input or output service there should be nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business activity. At the same time, because of the exhaustive definition of input service, the scope of nexus or integral connection is also explained and in fact is specifically provided. Therefore to find out whether there is a nexus or integral connection with the manufacturer of final products. We have to keep in mind the exhaustive definition contained in input service and then the word used therein, that is, the activities relating to business and then decide whether any particular service would constitute input service. The real test is, whether there is a nexus....