2016 (8) TMI 1014

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M. V. Ravindran 1. These two appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No.US/335/RGD/2011 dated 14/10/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid by the service provider on the services rendered i.e., garden maintenance, gutter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sted the final order, their reply given was that they were not aware of the same; I find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered in favour of the appellant and in respect of the Cenvat Credit availed on these two services. I do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order on this point. 7. As regards the service tax demand of Rs. 1,985/- in respect of service tax paid on carpet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X