TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal. We find that the appeal records in Form No. E.A.-3 filed by the appellant indicate the name of the respondent as "Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nagpur". Therefore, registry is directed to take necessary action in this regard. Miscellaneous application filed by Revenue is disposed of. 3.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below: 3.2 The appellants herein are engaged inter alia, in manufacture aluminum products falling under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985. For the purpose payment of Central Excise duty on final products and for compliance with Central Excise Statute, the appellants are duly registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities holding registration No. AAACH1201RXM013. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on inputs, capital goods and of service tax paid on input services for utilizing the same towards payment of central excise duty on final products. 3.3 Aditya Birla Management Corporation Limited (ABMCL) is a company limited by guarantee, duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is providing common corporate facilities and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner had disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs. 58,99,482/- under Rule 14 ibid read with Section 11A(1) ibid along with interest; and imposed penalty for an amount of Rs.5,89,948/- under Rule 15(1) read with Section 11AC ibid. Being aggrieved with the order of the original authority, the appellants had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In disposing the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in relying upon the decisions taken by him in the case of self-same appellants for the earlier period vide Orders-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/93/16-17/802807 dated 31.05.2016 and NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/646/2017-18 dated 05.01.2018, had upheld the order of the original authority in disallowing CENVAT credit and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the very same issue, which is disputed in the present appeal, in the case of self-same appellants have been decided in their favour for the past periods, by this Tribunal. He stated that in Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/ APPL/93/16-17/802-807 dated 31.05.2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made, over as quid pro quo. That such remittance has been made from appellant's end is not in dispute just as the uncontroverted invoices evidence inclusion of tax in addition to the cost and there is no allegation that the taxes so collected were not deposited with the exchequer. 6. In re Modular Auto Ltd, it has been held that '15. From the reasons assigned by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of allegation made in the show cause notices. By giving a different interpretation to the nature of transaction, which, in our considered view, could not have been done by the Appellate Authority in the light of the settled position with regard to the Service Tax liability admitted and paid by BIL Therefore, unless and until, the assessment on BIL had been reopened, the nature of transaction as referred by BIL has to be held to be wrong and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have given a different interpretation to the nature of claim made by the Bel from the assessees by interpreting the terminology used in the invoice. The correct test, which ought to have been applied by the Adjudicating Authority, A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TRU'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 amount charged for such service provided. It neither restricts a service provider from allocating expenses to the recipients nor mandates charging profit margins in exchange for the provision of such services. Therefore, even if ABMCPL merely apportioned expenses incurred by it to support the group entities, such apportioned amount represents the value of taxable service of BSS provided by ABMCPL. 13. The Appellant availed BSS provided by t....