2023 (1) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant Shri Harshvardhan, Authorised Representative of the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the order dated November 27, 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I [the Principal Commissioner] confirming the demand of inadmissible CENVAT credit availed in respect of deposit insurance service under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of deposits is not a 'service' as defined in Section 65(B)(44) of the Finance Act 1994. Subsequently also it cannot be treated as a 'output service' as per rule 2(p) of CCR 2004 as amended we.f. 01.07.2012 (vide Notification No. 28/2012-CE(NT) dated 20.06.2012. Prior to the said amendment, only taxable service could qualify as output service and since acceptance of deposits was n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering "output services‟." 5. The Bombay High Court in Bank of Maharashtra vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Pune-II [2020 (42) GSTL 491 (Bom.)], in view of the decision tendered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in South Indian Bank, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X