Bombay High Court
Idbi Bank Ltd vs The Commissioner, Gst And Cx, Ltu, ... on 12 February, 2021
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav
3. os cexa 172-19.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2019
IDBI Bank Ltd .. Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, GST & CX, LTU, Mumbai .. Respondent
...................
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Counsel i/by Sriram Sridharan for the
Appellant
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for the
Respondent
...................
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2021.
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Sridharan, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
2. This appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 has been preferred against the order dated
12.02.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) in
Appeal No. ST/86297/2015.
1 of 3
3. os cexa 172-19.doc
3. It is seen that issue involved in this appeal is identical
to the one in Central Excise Appeal No. 148 of 2019 and
other connected appeals which were disposed off on
22.09.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present appeal was inadvertently not listed along with the
aforesaid bunch of appeals. He submits that the appeal may
be disposed of in terms of the order dated 22.09.2020.
5. Mr. Jetly has no objection.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we may
advert to the order dated 22.09.2020. Relevant portion of
the order dated 22.09.2020 is extracted hereunder:-
"11. We find that a three-member bench of CESTAT, Bangalore had
delivered judgment on 20.03.2020. As already noticed above, the service
provided by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to the
banks for insuring the deposits of the public with the banks has been
considered by the banks to be an input service and CENVAT credit for
service tax paid by the banks for this service has been availed of by the
banks for rendering output service. The issue involved is whether the banks
can avail credit of this service tax paid by the banks for the service
provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation.
11.1 It was noted that Division Bench of CESTAT at Delhi in the appeal
filed by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had held that the banks can avail
such credit of service tax.
11.2 On the other hand, it was noted that CESTAT at Mumbai in ICICI
Bank Limited had disallowed such credit.
11.3. Since divergent views were expressed by division benches of
CESTAT, the matter was referred to the larger bench.
2 of 3
3. os cexa 172-19.doc
11.4. By the judgment and order dated 20.03.2020, the larger bench held
that view taken in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is the correct view and
the contrary view taken in ICICI Bank Limited is not acceptable. The
reference has accordingly been answered in the following terms:-
"The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance
Corporation to the banks is an "input service" and CENVAT credit of
service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the
Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for
rendering 'output services'."
12. In view of the decision rendered by the larger Bench of CESTAT,
the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 cannot be sustained and the same is
accordingly set aside and quashed. All the appeals are remanded back to
the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the decision rendered by
the larger bench.
13. Appeals are accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs."
7. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated
12.02.2019 is hereby set and quashed. Appeal is remanded
back to the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the
decision rendered by the Larger Bench.
8. Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]
Digitally signed
Ravindra by Ravindra M.
M. Amberkar
Date: 2021.02.15
Amberkar 12:24:07 +0530
3 of 3
