Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1105 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 11-10-2018
ST\/87083\/2018 – A\/88123\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER: S.K. MOHANTY
\nHeard both sides and perused the records.
\n2. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is, whether Central Excise duty paid on furniture can be considered as capital goods \/ inputs for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit. In this case, the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on furniture, considering the same as capital<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n se, the furniture purchased by the appellant for its business purpose, though is not confirming to the definition of capital goods, but the same should be considered as input, in absence of any restrictions provided in the statute. I find that in identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commr. Of S.T – 2016 (42) STR 938 (Tri. – Mum) has allowed Cenvat benefit on furniture items, considering the fact that the said goods are required for the purpose of rendering the taxable service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, MumbaiService Tax2019 (1) TMI 1105 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 11-10-2018ST\/87083\/2018 – A\/88123\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and … Continue reading “Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, I allow the appeal in favour of appellant.
\n(Order dictated in Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Ju<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n