TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s - Held that: - this service also falls within the definition of input service and the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21371-21378/2017-SM - 22866-22873/2017 - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri N. Anand, Advcoate - For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The appellant has filed these eight appeals against the common impugned order dt. 02/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has modified the Order-in-Original and disallowed the credit of ₹ 3,52,720/- on garden maintenance like grass cutting, waste removal insid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee on the above said services do not fall under the definition of input services as defined under Rule 2(I) of the CCR. The total amount of such credit availed by the assessee during the period from October 2007 to June 2011 works out to be ₹ 20,06,462/-. The said fact of irregular availment of credit has come to the knowledge of the Department only during the course of audit. Thus, it appeared that the assessee had wilfully suprressed the facts with intent to evade duty. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dt. 08/11/2012 was issued for recovery of the credit ₹ 20,06,462/- in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR and penalty under Rule 15(2) ibid, along with interest. Further, for the subsequent periods from July 2011 to March 2015 periodica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the defintion of input service has been given wider interpretation to include all services used in or in relation to the business. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. Millipore India Pvt Ltd. [2012(26) STR 514 (Kar.)]. He further submitted that this issue has also been settled in the following decisions:- i. Toyota Kirioskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(46) STR 69 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Rober Bosch Engg. Business Solutions Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017(51) STR 329 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Orient Bell Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017(52) STR 56 (Tri. All.)] iv. CCE Vs. International Combustion (l) Ltd. [2016(44) STR 110 (Tri. Mum.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
