2018 (11) TMI 1460 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – general insurance – repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and those utilized for staff welfare – Held 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.
–
The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to give findings with respect to admissibility of credit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
udicating authority, in para 22 of the order, has observed as follows: – When service in question has only an indirect nexus with an output service, it would qualify as inputs service only if it is covered by any of the description of services specified in the inclusive part of the definition of input service. Therefore, CENVAT credit is available in respect of services that have a direct or indirect nexus with the output service and if the services are specified in the inclusive part of the definition. As alleged in the show-cause notice the services in question have no nexus with the output service provided by the assessee and are specifically excluded from the definition of input service . I therefore find that the CENVAT credit availed and utilized in respect of services covered by the show-cause notice dated 14.10.2015 is inadmissible as per the provision of Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The assessee vide letter dated 17.11.2015 has submitted/intimated that, abiding to t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
it Rules, 2004 and AA without analyzing the changes made in the definition of input service, denied the said credit. In the finding portion of the OIO it is seen that AA has fully and indepth analyzed the input service definition as it changed periodically and I totally agree with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, hence I do not find any merit in appellants this claim. 2.2 He argued that from the above it is apparent that both the original adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority has not given any findings in respect of specific services involved in the instant case so far as show-cause notice pertaining to the period 2010 to 2014 is concerned. He argued that the impugned order is not a speaking order and therefore, the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for giving clear finding on the issue. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. He argued that the Order-in-Original given specific finding from para 25 onwards in respect o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =