Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (9) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (8) TMI 654 - CESTAT CHENNAI] after taking into consideration the ruling of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the appellant is entitled to input service tax credit subject to verification of cenvatable invoices and other relevant records by the adjudicating authority. For this purpose, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is remanded to adjudicating authority. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - E/40341/2015 - FINAL ORDER No.41078/2016 - Dated:- 24-6-2016 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri S. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The issue to be d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dt. 2.1.2015 upheld the OIO. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri S. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the definition of input service prescribed under Rule 2 (l) of CCR is expansive and not restrictive; that the said rule covers various input services including advertisement or sales promotion, market research etc. which are not even remotely connected to the manufacture of final products and are post-manufacturing activities. Therefore, said services are covered under the inclusive part of the definition. In this regard, he relied the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, ESIC Vs Highland Coffee Works of P.F.X Saldanha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Government. Ld. A.R submits that decision cited by appellant in the case of Greaves Cotton Ltd. (supra) is applicable for the period prior to 1.4.2011 only. Therefore, the appellant is liable for payment of the amounts for the period April 2011 to July 2011 in the present appeal. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the term input services used in Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is much wider in as much as it is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product as has been held by various judicial pronouncements. I find that in the appellant s own case (Appeal E/41511, 41512/2014) vide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates