2022 (3) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 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 i. Rent-a-Cab j. Outdoor Catering 2. All the thirty two appeals are being decided by this order as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8/- 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 (52340/2019) Gujarat (50735/2020) Noida (50038/2020) Noida (50034/2020) Noida (52338/2019) Noida (50736/2020) Hebbal, Bangalore (50043/2020) Hebbal, Bangalore (50036/2020) Hebbal, Bangalore (52344/2019) Hebbal, Bangalore ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dit 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 have been invoked. Learned counsel pointed out that in respect of these two issues also the adjudicating authority did not consider the reply submitted by the appellant and in fact on the former issue no finding has been recorded while the latter issue has been decided by a cryptic order. 7. Shri Om Prakash Bis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 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 No. 1 and are liable to be recovered from them. Held accordingly. " 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the reply given by the appellant to the show cause notice to all the services namely communication, maintenance and repair, courier services, security services, photocopy services, architect services, insurance....