9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax to the extent of Rs. 47,523/- paid on catering service for the period January 2008 to June 2008. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23.10.2008 was issued to show cause as to why the cenvat credit irregularly availed should not be demanded and recovered from them along with interest and penalty. On reply to the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise, wherein the Appellate Authority rejected the same. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 26 (Mum. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n up-to the place of removal. It is only an inclusive definition. The services mentioned in the Section are only illustrative and it is not exhaustive. Therefore when a particular service not mentioned in the definition clause is utilised by the assessee/manufacturer and service tax paid on such service is claimed as Cenvat Credit, that the question is what are the ingredients that are to be satisfied for availing such credit. If the credit is availed by the manufacturer, then the said service should have been utilized by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to activities relating to business. If any one of these two tests is satisfied, then such a service falls w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product is entitled to claim the credit. Therefore, the Judgment of the Tribunal is legal and valid and is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for any interference. Hence, the substantial questions of law framed in these appeals are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee."
6. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal having since been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is disposed off on the very same terms as in CEA Nos.96/2009 c/w 97/2009, 98/2009, 99/2009, 124/2009 and 125/2009.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
