2026 (1) TMI 1460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wer authority for recovery of credit of Rs. 1.07,23,732, along with applicable interest thereon, under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and imposition penalty of like amount under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for having been irregularly availed between March 2007 and June 2014 on the ground that 'cost-sharing' for which remittance was made to M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt Ltd was contrived to be passed off as 'service' that it was not. The appellant is a group company of the ostensible service provider which met expenditure for certain services used in common for the group and passed on to the participating companies in proportion determined by the Board of Directors of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Insurance Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2023 (4) TMI 922 - CESTAT MUMBAI], in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2021 (3) TMI 24 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2023 (2) TMI 1093 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. 4. Responding with excerpts from the impugned order, Learned Authorized Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement [2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom)]. 5. Services, on which taxes are leviable under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 16. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that whatever the portion of Service Tax component which was collected from the assessees by BIL was only the amount on which the CENVAT credit has been claimed by the assessees. Therefore, unless and until the assessment made on BIL was revised, which obviously could have been done, at this juncture, on account of the expiry of the period of limitation, the interpretation given by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal with regard to the nature of invoice raised on the assesses is unsustainable. Furthermore, we find that the reason assigned by the Tribunal in paragraph 6.2 stating that the activity performed by the BIL for monitoring of production activities of the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RU's Letter No. 334/4/2006-TRU, dated 28.02.2006 which clarified the scope of BSS. As per the Board Circular cited above, services which are in the nature of assistance or support provided by the principal to the service recipient would fall under BSS. In the present case, the services rendered by ABMCPL being in the nature of support service provided to the Appellant, qualify as BSS as defined under section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994.The manner of arriving at the value of services rendered would not change the nature of BSS provided by ABMCPL i.e., whether ABMCPL only recovered the expenses incurred or even charged a profit element. Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that value of any taxable service is the gross amoun....