Page 36 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

J132 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
(1) Lending service — Activity of advancing loans by
banks, whether exempt from Service Tax?

(2) Cenvat on Lending services — Interest earned by bank
in advancing loans, whether to be considered for
determining amount of reversal in terms of Rule
6(3A)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?

(3) Manpower Supply services provided to subsidiary
company, whether taxable when salary of employees
reimbursed by it?

(4) Valuation (Service Tax) — Reimbursable expenses,
whether includible in sitting fee paid to Director?

(5) Penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, whether
can be reduced to 25% when tax with interest paid
before issue of show cause notice?

(6) Show cause notice — Issuance of corrigendum restrict-
ing demand within five years of limitation period
though original show cause notice proposed demand
beyond said period, whether justified?
The Bombay High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S.
Sanklecha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nitin Jamdar on 14-11-2019 admitted the Cen-
tral Excise Appeal No. 187 of 2019 filed by Bank of Maharashtra against the
CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/85504-85505/2019-WZB, dated 15-3-2019 (Bank of
Maharashtra v. Commissioner). While admitting the appeal, the High Court passed
the following order :
“1. P.C. : Heard.
2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of
law :
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant
would be required to reverse the Cenvat credit taken in re-
spect of cash credit, overdraft services and bill discounting as
the same are exempted services within the meaning of Rule
2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in law, the Tribunal was justified in not giving any finding on
the taxability of the Director’s sitting fee under reverse charge
mechanism for the period prior to 7-8-2012?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in law, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the imposition
of penalty under Section 78 of the Act in respect of question
(i) as above?

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  132
( A132 )