M/s Kalpataru Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1460 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/86913/2018 – A/87125/2018
Service Tax
SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Mehul Jivani, C.A. for Appellant
Shri M.P. Dixit, AC (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Raju
This appeal has been filed by M/s Kalpataru Ltd. against denial of CENVAT Credit of certain services received by them in relation to general insurance, repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and those utilized for staff welfare.
2. Learned C.A. for the appellant argued that they are not contesting the demand confirmed in respect of services used for staff welfare. He pointed out that two show-cause notices were issued, one for the period 2010 to 2014 and another for 2014-15. Both the notices were adjudicated by same original adjudicating authority but different first appellate authority. He pointed out that in respect of impugned show-cau
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d/intimated that, abiding to the show-cause notice they have admitted their liability and paid total liability of Rs. 11,05,801/- along with interest of Rs. 8,83,714/- vide Challan No. 05214 dated 05.11.2015 and 05218, 05216, 05213 all dated 05.11.2015. As the assessee has admitted the liability and paid the same along with interest. I am not discussing the admissibility/inadmissibility of individual services covered by the show-cause notice.”
2.1 He further pointed out that Commissioner (Appeals) has also not given any findings in respect of individual services in respect of which credit was taken and observed as follows: –
8. I have considered the submissions made by appellants which are available on records and findings and reasoning's and stand taken by the Adjudicating Authority. In this case appellant stated that they were eligible to avail/take CENVAT credit on the various employees and business related insurances charges as per the definition of the input service given in th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
para 25 onwards in respect of these very services.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Order-in-Original confirms the demand without given any specific finding on the admissibility/inadmissibility of individual services covered by the impugned show-cause notice by observing that the assessee had admitted the liability and paid the same along with interest. The assessee had indeed paid liability and informed the Joint/Additional Commissioner on 17.11.2015 about the payment made, however, on 29.2.2015 in its reply to the showcause notice contested all the issues before original adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, the observation of the original adjudicating authority to the effect that the appellants are not contesting the demand is incorrect. In so far as findings given in para 25 onwards are concerned, the same relate to a different show-cause notice and different period.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =