TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akumar, Advocate For the Petitioner Smt Kavitha Poduwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that the appellants are eligible for refund of unutilized service tax credit in respect of Commercial Training or Coaching Service, Courier Agency, Telecommunication service, Rent a Cab service and are not eligible in respect of Business Support Services, Management Consultancy Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, practicing Chartered Accountant Service and Technical Testing and Analysis service and Ere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not eligible for refund are mentioned below with reasons against the same: (i) Business Support Services Not related to manufacturing activity. (ii) Commercial Training or Coaching service services not related to manufacturing activity disallowed. (iii) Courier Agency post manufacturing activity (iv) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services not relevant to manufacturing activity and some input service documents not as per rule 4 A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 disallowed. (v) Internet Telecommunication Not related to manufacturing activity (vi) Management Consultant Not related to manufacturing activity (vii) Management, Maintenance and Repair Service Services which are not related to manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the impugned services on which the refund has been denied fall in the definition of input service and this Tribunal in appellant s own case by various orders have held this as input service . In support of his submission, he relied upon the orders passed by this Tribunal in their own case which are reproduced herein below: a) Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore Final Order No. 21116-21117/2016 b) Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore Final Order No. 21411/2016 c) Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore Final Order N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
