TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax for all those services and also on import of service, appellant obtained service tax registration. On perusal of ST-3 returns filed by the appellant for the period from October, 2009 to March, 2010 it is observed that they have shown excess amount taken as service tax input. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 01.04.2011 and Adjudication authority as per the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2012 confirmed the demand and aggrieved by said order an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal as per Final Order No. 20371/2014 dated 20.03.2014 remanded the matter with following observation; "14........... a) Regarding disallowance of Cenvat Credit availed on insurance auxiliary service, outdoor catering service, management, maintenance or repair service, clearing and forwarding agent's service and business support services, the department had, for the subsequent periods, taken the view that such credit was admissible and the refunds claimed by M/s RBEBSL on the ground that the services had been utilized for output service which were exported had been allowed, and therefore, it would be appropriate that the Departmental Officers consider these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statute and not because of some statement or letter written by M/s RBEBSL; and (f) As regards the amount of 1,09,035/ relating to event management service, M/s RBEBSL had contended that there was direct nexus and there were decisions after the orders had been passed, taking a view that such credit was admissible. Hence, the Hon'ble CESTAT left it to M/s RBEBSL to cite such decisions before the lower authorities or in the proceedings after the remand and the lower authorities were requested to consider such submissions." Thereafter, denovo proceedings were conducted as directed by this Tribunal and Adjudication Authority as per the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty under various provisions of law. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, as regarding Cenvat credit is disallowed on account of ineligible credit and not having nexus with output services, Learned CA for the appellant submits that Rs. 45,33,011/- is rejected by the Adjudication Authority on the ground that appellant has not clearly established that certain services are having an impact on provision of output service. In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and statement did not match with the ST3 returns filed by the Appellant. In this regard, Learned CA submits that the credit shown in the ST3 return was correct, however, while claiming refund, the appellant had inadvertently omitted to consider the same. The learned CA draw our attention to the copy of relevant invoices and submits that the credit shown in the ST3 return was correct and appellant is eligible for said credit. 4. As regarding Cenvat credit disallowed for documentation reasons Rs. 7,30,980/- was rejected by the Adjudication Authority on the ground that Cenvat credit availed is based on documents which do not contain the requisite particulars including PAN based registration details and service tax paid/payable details, as prescribed under Rule 4A(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In this regard learned CA submits that as per the Final Order of this Tribunal, while remanding the matter, directed the lower authorities to consider whether such omissions can be condoned by invoking of Rule 9 empowering the lower authority to condone the omissions. However, in denovo adjudication, again on the same ground it is held that Cenvat credit is irregular. In this regard learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoking provisions under Rule 14 for denying the Cenvat credit as claimed by the appellant as per ST-3 returns filed earlier is unsustainable in the absence of any admissible evidence to prove that there was fraud or negligence or suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. 9. Learned CA also relied on the following decisions; i. Honda Siel Power Products Vs. UOl [2020 (372) ELT 30 (All)] ii. Motor Industries Co. Ltd Vs. CCEx, Bengaluru [1999 (113) E.LT. 697 (Tribunal)] iii. TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs. CCEx & ST, Mysore [2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 85 (Tri. - Bang.)] iv. Paro Foods Vs. CCE, Hyderabad (2005 (184) E.L.T. 50 (Tri. - Bang.) v. Auxichem Vs. CCE, Belapur [2015 (330) E.L.T. 721 (Tri. - Mumbai) 10. The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 11. Heard both sides. As regarding demand against ineligible Cenvat credit, considering the details of input services and since the issue was considered by this Tribunal in appellant's own case as per Final Order NO. 23114-23130/2017 dated 08.12.2017 for the period from April 2008 to June 2008, Appellant is eligible for CENV....