9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: S.K. Gaule Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is arising on account of Hon'ble High Court's order in Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the case to decide the question raised in this appeal in accordance with the decision of the Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 3. To recapitulate, the facts of the case, in brief, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the respondents' appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the department preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. Larger Bench of this Tribunal decided the case in favour of the respondents. The department challenged the Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. A question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was as under: - "In the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the case, at any stage. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The Hon'ble High Court in the Ultratech Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) in para 31 has held as under: - "31.?In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) in the context of the definition of 'input' in Rule 2(k) of 2004 Rules would equally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules." 5. From the above, it follows that the service having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
