Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 184 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHDenial of CENVAT credit - input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Rent - ISO Service - Software Service - Advertising Service - CPA Service - consultancy Service - Courier service - House keeping service - Commissioner, catering and Security on the premises - whether the CENVAT credit on these services can be denied on the ground that these services are not input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - reference made on the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] - Held that: - the decision of the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. cannot be relied upon as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that cenvat credit on input is available if these inputs is used in manufacturing of final product. Admittedly, in the case in hand no input is involved. The distinction between input and input service is not clearly understood. The decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] relied upon where it was held that any services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods is entitled for cenvat credit. The services is availed by the respondent in the course of their business of manufacturing - CENVAT credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|