TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder chapter 32 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at their factory at Village Amdoshi/Wangani. The appellants are registered taxpayers holding Central Excise Registration No. AAACS7249CXM001 for manufacture of aforesaid finished product and for compliance with the central excise statute. 3.1 Denial of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on twenty six different items of services viz., air ticket agent service, airport services, business exhibition service, cable operator service, cleaning service, club/association service, company secretary service, courier service, designing service, director service, foreign exchange service, health service, information technology software service, intellectual property service, internet communication service, manpower recruitment service, online information and database retrieval service, packing service, renting of immovable property service, security services, share transfer service, stock exchange service, technical testing, inspection & certification service, telephone service, tour operator service, services other than those in negative list etc. is the subject matter of present dispute. 3.2 During the scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as disallowed. 8 Order-in-Original No. Raigad/ JC/06 (PKA)/17-18 dated 13.06.2017 passed by Joint Commissioner disallowing CENVAT credit for the period June, 2015 to May, 2016. 75,19,635 Order-in-Appeal No. MKK/122/RGD- APP/2018-19 dated 31.05.2018 passed in allowing credit of Rs.68,93,045/- and confirming demand of CENVAT credit of Rs.6,26,590/-. The said order was accepted in review by the competent authority on merits on 07.09.2018. 3.3. In respect of SCNs at Sl. No.1 to 5 covering the period April, 2010 to August, 2013, for the adjudged demands confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in Order-in-Original No. 11-28/MAK (11-28) COMMR/ RGD/ 2014-15 dated 26.05.2014, the appellants had preferred Excise Appeal No.88653 of 2014 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants had also approached Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for discharge of tax dues under such scheme. While passing the Final Order No. A/85845-85846/2020 dated 28.10.2020, on hearing various appeals of the appellants, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had observed that since the appellants had approached Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the head office situated at Mumbai, who is registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD) with the department. He further submitted that the head office makes payment for various inputs services and being an ISD, takes credit of service tax paid thereon and distributes the same in terms of Rule 7 of CCR of 2004, proportionately to all their units manufacturing dutiable goods, by issuing invoices under Rule 4A(2) ibid. Further, he stated that the appellants have filed periodical ST-3 returns with the jurisdictional authorities. 4.2 Learned Advocate further stated that in the impugned order, learned Commissioner had allowed CENVAT credit in respect of few specified services as summarised in paragraph 35 of the impugned order, and denied credit in respect of 26 specified services. In denying the credit, the impugned order has held that those services are not covered under the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CCR of 2004; and no nexus could be established between the input services in the manufacture of finished products. In respect of services for which CENVAT credit was denied, learned Advocate submitted that these are for services of air ticket agent service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jaipur-II Vs. Nitin Spinners Ltd., - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Del.); (x) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd., - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) 5. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing for the department, on the other hand, submitted that the definition of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) ibid has undergone a change, which exclude various input services which are used for personal consumption and employees' consumption and such services are not eligible for taking CENVAT credit. Therefore, he reiterated the findings in the impugned order and claimed that the impugned order is sustainable and appeal filed by the appellants cannot be entertained. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We have also examined the submissions advanced by learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. Further, we have also perused the additional written submissions in the form of paper books submitted by both sides along with citation of case laws which both sides have mentioned in support of their case. 7. The issue involved in this appeal is about the eligibility to avail CENVAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services) in so far as they are used for- (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or (B) services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods; or (BA) service of general insurance business, servicing, repair and maintenance, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods, except when used by- (a) a manufacturer of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor vehicle manufactured by such person; or (b) an insurance company in respect of a motor vehicle insured or reinsured by such person; or (C) such as those provided in relation to outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of a club, health and fitne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) for discharge of tax dues under such scheme. As explained in the Budget Speech of the Union Budget, 2009, the SVLDRS scheme is intended to serve as Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme to unload huge revenue of the government blocked in litigations in service tax and excise duty, by allowing trade and business to avail this opportunity and be free from legacy litigations for allowing quick closure of these litigations. However, it is not forthcoming from the facts of the case, as to why the appellants had preferred part period covering the dispute during April, 2010 to August, 2013 under SVLDRS and for subsequent period they have taken up the issues in dispute before the appellate authorities. 9.2 As regards the dispute on same issues for the subsequent period i.e., June, 2015 to May, 2016, in the case of self-same appellants involving ineligible CENVAT Credit of Rs. 75,19,635/-, the issue has attained finality as the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing credit of Rs.68,93,045/- and confirming demand of CENVAT credit of Rs.6,26,590/- have been accepted by the department in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Revenue and he fairly conceded that the facts and the point of law in the said case are identical to that of the present case and therefore covered by that decision. 11. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that where the department accepts the principle laid down by the Tribunal in one case and let it become final, then the department is not entitled to raise the same point in other cases. The department cannot pick and choose. [See: The decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Another - (2001) 10 SCC 231; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd. - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.); Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise -2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.); and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.). It has been held in all these cases that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the Revenue, the Revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question. In Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), this Court observed as follows : ....