2017 (10) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ealthcare Pvt. Ltd. against rejection of refund claim filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.  2. The Assistant Manager of the appellant pointed out that the refund claim has been rejected in respect of construction service used for maintenance purpose and clearing and forwarding service used by the appellant on the ground that the said services did not qualify as input services. He point .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one through the rival submission. I find that the Tribunal order dated 10.06.2015 and 03.07.2017 in appellant's own case allowed them credit of the service tax paid on clearing and forwarding service and for construction service used for maintenance and repair. Relying on the said decision, I find the ground of rejection of claim on this ground cannot be sustained. 5. I find that Tribunal in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat prior to 14-3-2006 the refund of credit of Cenvat in respect of "input services" was not permitted under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules or the notification issued thereunder. It can be seen that most of the credit claimed by the appellant pertains to the period prior to 1-3-2006, during which period credit of service tax paid on services used for manufacture of goods exported was not permis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X