TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit on all the input services involved in the present case for the period October 2012 to September 2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21082/2015-SM, ST/21083/2015-SM - Final Order No. 21093-21094 / 2017 - Dated:- 19-7-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against two impugned order No.35/20014 dated 30.1.2015 and No.38/2015 dated 30.1.2015. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of final product. Hence, the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. A show-cause notice was issued demanding irregularly availed input service tax credit, demanding applicable interest and proposing penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004. The original authority after due course confirmed the demand of ₹ 16,19,047/- and allowed the input service tax credit of ₹ 25,224/- on Testing and Certification and Training Service and demanded applicable interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 16,19,047/- under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the appellant is a pharmaceutical company an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing decisions: * Commissioner vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.: 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.) * Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner: 2017 (49) STR 235 (Tri.-Hyd.) * Alliance Global Services IT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner: 2016 (44) STR 113 (Tribunal) * CCE vs. International Combustion (I) Ltd.: 2016 (44) STR 110 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2017 (49) STR 88 (Tri.-Hyd.) * Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Mumbai: 2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4.1 She further submitted that as per the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) is only in respect of works contract service and construction service used for construction or execution of works contract of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese services are an input service and therefore, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Tribunal in appellant s own case vide Final Order No.21019/2017 dated 12.4.2017 has allowed credit on all the input services involved in the present case for the period October 2012 to September 2013. Therefore by following the ratios of various decisions and the decision of this Tribunal in appellant s own case, I hold that all the impugned services fall in the definition of input service and the same has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished product and therefore appellants are entitled to the CENVAT credit of the same. Therefore, I set aside the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
