2016 (8) TMI 1264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd cannot, within reason, allow a discriminatory treatment that permits a tax arbitrage merely because a particular business model is adopted. If we were to compare a situation wherein the hirer of a factory premises were at a disadvantage vis-à-vis an owner of factory premises, this windfall would become obvious - the superficial conformity with definition of ‘input service’ is anathema - service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tted fact that the service was utilised for establishment of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) plant which, appellant claims, is used in relation to manufacture and, hence, eligible. 2. Impugned Order-in-Appeal No. BC/208/BEL/2012-13, dated 31st July, 2012 upheld the disallowance ordered by the original authority and hence this appeal. Appellant relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inds use in manufacture of output . A factory is essential for manufacture of an output and it would, at first glance, appear that claim of appellant is tenable. It must, however, be noted that tax laws do not discriminate and cannot, within reason, allow a discriminatory treatment that permits a tax arbitrage merely because a particular business model is adopted. If we were to compare a situatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X