TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al expenditure to increase their existing facility and to create new production capacity of the company in India and abroad. The ‘ECB’ services availed by the appellant are therefore, clearly in relation to the business activities and for promoting the inks manufacture by the appellant. It is the case of appellant that during the relevant period the activities relating to business was covered with the definition of inputs services under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. No contrary arguments are available in the orders passed by the lower authorities that such activities relating to business were not existing in the definition of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, it is held that the services availed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in relation to their business activities which is squarely covered by the judgement of this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I vs. GMR Industries Ltd. [2015 (38) S.T.R. 509 (Tri. Bang.)]. Learned Advocate also relied upon the judgement of ABB Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax, Bangalore ST/336/2007, ST/345, 347/2006 to argue that at the relevant time the words 'activities in relation to business' was mentioned in the definition of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, Cenvat Credit on such services was correctly taken by the appellant and distributed to its manufacturing units in India. 3. Shri L. Patra (AR) appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities that such activities relating to business were not existing in the definition of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, it is held that the services availed by the appellant were Banking and other financial services on which service tax was paid under reverse charge. The factual matrix of this case is thus stand covered by the case law of this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I vs. GMR Industries Ltd. (supra). The Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant with respect to the ECB, for which tax was paid under Banking and other financial services, is therefore covered with in the definition of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prevalent during the relevant per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
