Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 89 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Input service - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that:- Following decision of CCE Vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - respondents are eligible for the input credit of ₹ 7,01,979/-. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of allowing credit on input services. As regards availment of credit on common input services - Held that:- respondents holding centralised registration and not maintained separate accounts of input services for the trading activity as well as for the taxable service. I find from the records and findings of the OIO, there is no dispute on the fact that respondents are carrying out both trading activity and taxable service under BAS as commission agents. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Pune-I (2014 (4) TMI 12 - CESTAT MUMBAI) has clearly held that entire credit on trading activity is not eligible and only proportionate credit with reference to turnover is eligible. - respondents are not eligible for the entire credit availed on the common input services. Since the department rightly demanded the excess credit of ₹ 6,78,459/- which is in excess of 20% of the total service tax payable, the respondents paid the excess amount and they are not eligible to take re-credit in cenvat account nor they are eligible for refund. The adjudication order rejecting the refund of ₹ 6,78,459/- and the interest amount is upheld and the L.A.A. order allowing credit is liable to be set aside.- Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
|