TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not imposable - In case of penalty imposed for the period after March’ 2011, it is found that the credit has been reversed at the time of investigation and there is no reason to hold the Appellant guilty of any suppression or malafide intention, penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/90153/2014 - A/85720/2018 - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appearance Shri S.S. Gupta, C.A. for Appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The present appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dt. 28.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, Mumbai III. The brief facts of the case are that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in relation to business, hence eligible for the credit. They are service based company and the employees are biggest resources. Hence they have taken a Group medical Accident policy for these employees. He relies upon the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.). He submits that the terms Input Service includes all services used in relation to business. He also relied upon the following orders wherein the credit of service tax on impugned service has been allowed : (i) Millipore India Pvt. LTD. 2012 (26) STR 514 (KAR.) (ii) Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd 2011 (23) STR 444 (KAR.) (iii) Micro Labs Ltd. 2011 (24) STR 272 (KAR.) (iv) KPMG 2014 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sured. We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel that in their own case, the Mumbai Tribunal held that such Cenvat credit cannot be denied and refund has to be sanctioned. This decision is reported at 2016-TIOL-1851-CESTAT-MUM = 2016 (45) S.T.R. 116 (Tribunal). Thus following the above ratio laid down by this Tribunal we hold that the Appellant is liable for credit on impugned service prior to March 2011 and the demand and penalty confirmed/ imposed upon them for said period is not sustainable. In case of penalty imposed for the period after March 2011, we find as the credit has been reversed at the time of investigation and there is no reason to hold the Appellant guilty of any suppression or malafide intention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
