TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Works Contract Services - Reverse Charge 8. Manpower Supply Services - Reverse Charge 9. Other Taxable Services - Reverse Charge 2. They opted for provisional assessment on the ground that they could finalize the tax liability only after collecting data from all their operating offices and hence, provisional assessment was granted for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17; the appellant thereafter filed the final S.T.-3 returns as under: - For the year Date of filing 2014-15 28.10.2015 2015-16 25.10.2016 2016-17 31.10.2017 3.1 It appears that after due process, Orders-in-Original for the above period were passed which are tabularized in the impugned order. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: - Order-in-Original No. & Dt. Period Amount Issue Involved 01/2017-18(PA) dated 27.03.2018 2014-15 Rs.8,00,82,567/- 1) Demand of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Rs.4,920/- + Rs.52,96,642/- Disallowed CENVAT Credit on Hotel Accommodation and Medical Insurance 02/2017-18(PA) dated 27.03.2018 2015-16 Rs.10,23,08,928/- 1) Demand of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CENVAT Credit Rules and hence, has confirmed the denial of CENVAT Credit in the Orders-in-Original of the above services as in order and that the appellant was not eligible to take CENVAT Credit on the Hotel Accommodation and Health Insurance for their staff. 5.3 Regarding the Corrigendum issued after the Orders-in-Original, the first appellate authority has held that the appellant had not contested on merits and that their only contention was that the Corrigendum was not permissible under law; and that since the demand in the Corrigendum was not confirmed in the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) had chosen not to interfere with. 6. Seriously aggrieved by the above common Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has preferred the present appeals before this forum. In the grounds-of appeal, the appellant has made out the following issues: - (1) Whether the adjudicating authority was correct in finalizing the provisional assessment when certain issues relating to the provisional assessment were pending for adjudication by issue of separate notices and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could pass an Order-in-Appeal without considering this legal proposition? And whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccommodation Services, he would submit that these issues are also no more res integra by virtue of the following rulings:- ▪ Medical Insurance: i. Ganesan Builders Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Service Tax [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 39 (Mad.)=2018 (10) TMI 269] ii. Essjay Ericsson (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T., Delhi East [2023 (7) TMI 261 - CESTAT, New Delhi] iii. Rajratan Global Wire Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Ujjain [2021 (4) TMI 400 - CESTAT, New Delhi] iv. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, MHU Complex, Chennai [2023 (2) TMI 894 - CESTAT, Chennai] v. Alstom T & D India Ltd. & Scheider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax [2020 (3) TMI 74 - CESTAT, Chennai] vi. Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Cus. & S.T., Hyderabad-II [2017 (52) S.T.R. 186 (Tri. - Hyd.)=2017 (2) TMI 538] ▪ Hotel Accommodation Service: i. Temenos India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2020 (2) TMI 354 - CESTAT, Chennai] ii. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner (Appeals) finding is correct when he has not taken into consideration the grounds taken before him on this issue? (3) Whether the reversal of credit attributable to common input services used for taxable services and exempted services as done by the appellants was correct in terms of the relevant rules? Whether the methodology adopted is in tune with the legal provisions? (4) Whether credit attributable to input services towards Hotel Accommodation and staff Mediclaims could be denied for the reasons stated, if any, in the order of Finalization of Provisional Assessment and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming such denial of credit is correct? 11.1 From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no discussion as regards the reversal of proportionate CENVAT Credit, but however, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only followed the order of the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT in Stay Petition No. E/Stay/94212/2014-Mum. In Appeal No. E/86112/2014-Mum [2014 (310) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. We have gone through the said order relied upon by the lower appellate authority, from which it is clear to us that the same is in the nature of an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispute. 12. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, we find that the appellant has seriously contested the same since the corrigendum was issued after Finalization of the Provisional Assessment. We find that under the guise of corrigendum, the original authority has re-visited the concluded original proceedings and thereby substantially modified paragraphs (f), (h) and (h) of the Order-in-Original No. 01/2017-18 (PA) dated 27.03.2018, Order-in-Original No. 02/2017-18 (PA) dated 27.03.2018 and Order-in-Original No. 03/2017-18 (PA) dated 27.03.2018 respectively, thereby holding that "... the assessee are not eligible for exemption ...". This is impermissible in law since admittedly, he has passed speaking Orders-in-Original and thereafter, no Notice was issued to the appellant for withdrawing an exemption already granted. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly erred in holding that "... demands confirmed in the impugned orders do not have any bearing with respect to corrigendum ... there is no question of interference by me in the impugned orders ...". We find it difficult to accept the above view of the lower appellate authority since the corrigendum is clearly issued wi....