Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....galore. 2. Briefly the facts are the appellant M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile M/s. Syndicate Bank) provided Banking and Other Financial Services, Business Support Services, Commercial Training or Coaching services etc. On verification of their ST-3 returns, it was found that they had utilised cenvat credit of Rs.3,78,00,541/- which was held to be irregular and hence, notice was issued. The original authority vide Order-in-Original No.04/2009 dated 04.03.2009 held that the appellant was ineligible for the CENVAT credit of Rs.2,92,47,275/-. The appellant filed an appeal against the above order and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.02/2010 dated 07.12.2009 allowed the appeal by way of remand. During the denovo proceedings, the Commissioner afte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether the appellant is eligible for various input services as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 02/2010 dated 07.12.2009 in the first round of litigation observed as follows : "6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perused the records produced before us, we find that the entire demand of Rs.2,92,47,275/ has arisen only on the ground that the appellant was not able to give break up of the head "other charges". We find that the adjudicating authority has come to such a conclusion for denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant has not produced any breakup and detailed explanation. The adjudicating authority should ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not provided 10 Others at 12 Ros for which break up not given 11,15,864 Sample documents not provided 11 Excess credit availed 9,83,864 Excess credit 12 Security charges 12,39,677 Ineligible input 13 Hire charges for vehicle/generator 379 Ineligible input 14 General Repairs 978 Ineligible input 15 Concurrent audit fee 86,999 Ineligible input 16 Professional charges 5,279 Ineligible input 17 Rent 55,748 Ineligible input   Total 97,24,249   6.1 We find that at paragraph 24 of the impugned order, the Commissioner observed as follows: "I find that they have furnished audited certificates of service tax paid stateme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lipore 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 an....