2017 (9) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 31.31.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has allowed the CENVAT credit in respect of few input services and rejected the CENVAT credit in respect of depository/demat charges and membership/subscription charges and also denied CENVAT credit in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd certain services on which CENVAT credit was availed are not qualified as input services. Therefore, two show-cause notices dated 01.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 were issued to the appellants proposing for demand/recovery of wrongly availed credit along with interest and penalty. The original authority after due process of law has allowed CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 81,392/- and held that the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice' as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369. He further submitted that the appellant being a public limited and fisted company and an export house, incurred service tax on depository/demat charges which comes under the heading Registrar's fees which is allowed under the Income Tax also as expenses under Section 37 of the Income T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X