TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of passing of the impugned order and these rulings were pronounced subsequently. In this view of matter and after recording the finding that the appellants case are covered by these two rulings, I remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to verify the amount of CENVAT Credit reversed. If the same is found to be short then the appellant may be allowed an opportunity to reverse the balance amount alongwith interest. It is also held that the Banking and other Financial Service, which are the output service of the appellant are not fully exempted and accordingly, do not fall under the category of exempt service as defined under Rule 2(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Matter remanded back - Decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had raised the ground that it had reversed the total amount of CENVAT credit availed for the common input service along with interest and the same was repaid by challans, a copy of which is annexed at pages 9 to 16 of the paper-book. In this view of the matter, the whole input service credit was reversed relating to common input service. Therefore, there was no question of any tax payable under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand alongwith penalty and interest relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom). Being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar circumstances taking into consideration the reversal of whole of the credit of common input service, relief was allowed. The appellant also strongly contends that in view of the definition of Exempt Service, they do not fall under the provision of Rule 6(3). 3. The learned AR relies on the impugned order, but does not dispute the rulings relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant. 4. Having considered the rival contention, I find that the issue is full covered by Josts Engineering (supra) and also in the case of Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra). I find that the appellants case is squarely covered as in earlier order No. A/1218/14/SMB/C-IV dated 14.07.2014 in Appeal No. ST/86481/14-Mum. Further, the aforementioned ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
