9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and cargo handling services, no findings has been returned by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% subsidiary of General Motor Corporation, USA and has set-up a Technical Centre in Bangalore from where the appellant export its services primarily to overseas General Motor entities such as General Motor Global Technology Operations, General Motors Corporation, for which the consideration is received in freely convertible foreign exchange. The appellant essentially carried out its activities in the discipline of automobiles engineering, wherein the predominant component of such services was engineering design and development activities pertaining to automobile industry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tising agency and cargo handling services. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the definition of input services as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). He further submitted that these two services viz., real estate agent services as well as technical testing and analysis service fall in the definition of input service as the same is related to the activities of the business. He also submitted that these input services have been used in relation to the output service. He also submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the following decisions: i. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI: 1998 (36) ELT 201 ii. DSCL Sugar vs. CCE: 2012 (25) STR 599 iii. Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010-TIOL-745 iv. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (17) STR 540 v. ABB Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009-TIOL-830 Further, in the case of Kamadhenu Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE: 2007 (8) STR 188, it was held that advertisement activity is clearly in relation to manufacture and qualifies for credit. Further, in the case of CCE vs. Cadila Healthcare: 2013 (30) STR 13 wherein it has been held that drugs manufactured by assessee, by their very nature, require technical testing and analysis before entering commercial production. Final product could be manufactured only up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
