IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 409 of 2011 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 04/Commr/ST/Kol/2011-12 dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107)

M/s. Bank of India : Appellant Kolkata Corporate Banking Branch, Kolkata – 700 001 VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax : Respondent Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107 APPEARANCE:

Shri S.K. Goyal, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant Shri P. Das, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75357 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 15.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 13.03.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]

The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 04/Commr/ST/Kol/2011-12 dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata –

700 107.

2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Bank of India, Kolkata Corporate Banking Branch, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”] is a Public Sector Bank rendering services under the category of “banking and other financial services” as defined under Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has been rendering both taxable and exempted services and has availed CENVAT Credit in respect of various input services.

3. On the allegation, inter alia, that the appellant had provided taxable as well as exempted services during the material period, but had not maintained separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of common input services meant for use in providing output services and had also not registered under the category of ‘Input Service Distributor’ resulting in irregular availment of CENVAT Credit, a Show Cause Notice dated 05.01.2010 was issued to the appellant, denying CENVAT Credit of Rs.9,33,806/- and Rs.26,94,414/-, proposing recovery thereof and demanding Service Tax of Rs.6,11,37,297/-, along with interest and penalty thereon.

3.1. After due process, the said Notice was adjudicated vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2011 wherein the demands as proposed in the above Show Cause Notice were confirmed, along with interest and penalties.

3.2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the above demands, along with interest and penalties, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the demand as confirmed against the appellant in the impugned order can be categorized under the following three categories: -

4.1. In respect of the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.9,33,806/- and demand for recovery thereof, as confirmed in the impugned order, the appellant’s submission is that the said demand has been raised on the ground that the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for the said exempted services for the period from February, 2005 to April, 2005. It is submitted by the appellant that they have utilized CENVAT Credit in excess of the restriction of 20% of the Service Tax payable on the taxable output services; however, it is their contention on this score that the Revenue has quantified the said 20% limit on a monthly basis, which is not specified in any of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant submits that if the CENVAT Credit utilized for the Financial Year is taken as a whole, then the whole of the credit utilized by them is well within the restriction of 20% as prescribed under sub-rule 3(c) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In view of the above submission, the appellant argued that the demand of Rs.9,33,806/- as confirmed in the impugned order on account of misutilization of credit in