TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of aerated water, fruit juice and pulp based drink and packaged drinking water [manufactured products] which are sold under various brand names such as Coca-Cola, Fanta, Limca, Mazza, Nimbooz, etc. It availed and utilized input service credit in respect of services received by various offices of the appellant registered with the Central Excise and Service Tax Department as 'Input Service Distributors' [ISD] for distribution of service tax credit on the services received by them. The services are as follows:- a. Telecommunication b. Maintenance and Repair c. Courier d. Photocopying (Business Auxiliary) e. Security f. Architect g. Insurance h. Real Estate/Properties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of Dispute 2012-13 to 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 April, 2017- June,2017 Demand Rs. 4,87,98,633/- Rs. 6,03,84,290/- Rs. 6,17,33,667/- Rs. 5,58,15,418/- Penalty Rs. 4,87,98,633/- Rs. 6,03,84,290/- Rs. 6,17,33,667/- Rs. 5,58,15,418/- Penalty on each ISD Rs. 25,00,000/- Rs. 25,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- ISD (Co- Noticees) with Appeal Number Mumbai (50028/2020) Mumbai (50032/2020) Mumbai (52343/2019) Mumbai (50731/2020) Gurgaon (50027/2020) Pune (50040/2020) Pune (52347/2019) Pune (50733/2020) Jaipur (50029/2020) Jaipur (50026/2020) Jaipur (52345/2019) Jaipur (50732/2020) Gujarat (50042/2020) Gujarat (50033/2020) Gujarat (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant to the issues raised in the show cause notice. In this connection, learned counsel pointed out that the appellant had specifically stated as to why the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on each of the services, but without considering the submissions and without giving any reason, credit has been denied to the appellant. Learned counsel also pointed out that the quantification of demand is erroneous and though the appellant had explained this portion in the reply, but the adjudication order does not deal with this issue at all. Learned Counsel also submitted that the show cause notice could not have been served on the recipient of service distributed by an ISD and that the extended period of limitation could not ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other hand, the party No. 1 has not been able to show any nexus between 'the use of these services' and 'manufacture and clearance of the final products'. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx As the party No. 2 has not discharged the onus cast on them and has not produced any evidences regarding 'usage' of the said services, in relation to manufacture and clearance of their final products, it can be safely concluded that the CENVAT Credit on the above services have been wrongly availed and utilized by the party No. 1. Therefore, the CENVAT Credits of Rs. 4,87,98,633/- availed by them during the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 and amounting to Rs. 6,03,84,290/-, availed during the financial year 2015-16 are not admissible to the party ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibuted by an ISD and no finding has been recorded. 13. The issue relating to invocation of the extended period of limitation has been dealt with by the Commissioner in a very cryptic manner, though a detailed reply had been filed by the appellant. The order passed by the Commissioner on this aspect is as follows:- " In view of the above settled legal position, I find that this contention is not tenable. Apart from the above, in view of the said specific ruling given by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Tribunal on this issue, the party's contentions are not sustainable." 14. It is, therefore, a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh reasoned order after taking into consider....