TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 22-8-2017 - Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The appellants have filed appeal against the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Bangalore and the other appeal filed by the authorized signatory Mr. T. Soranam on whom the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- has been imposed and the third appeal has been filed by the Department against the reduction of penalty on the authorized signatory. 2. Since the issue involved in these appeals is identical, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this order. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 10,27,229/- already paid by them should not be appropriated (e) why penalty should not be imposed on Shri T. Sornam, Authorised Signatory under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Following the principles of natural justice, the demand as proposed in show-cause notice is confirmed by the adjudicating authority and penalty of ₹ 10,27,647/- has been imposed on Shri T. Sornam, Authorised Signatory under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who upheld the Order-in-Original but reduced the penalty to ₹ 50,000/- on Shri T. Sornam, authorised signatory of the appellant. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 (42) STR 6 (Kar.) Food expenses for employee Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 446 (Tri.-Ahmd.) CST Vs. Yodlee Infotech (P) Ltd.: 2015 (39) STR 695 (Tri.-Bang. Sodexho coupons Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2013 (30) STR 446 (Tri.-Ahmd.) CST Vs. Yodlee Infotech (P) Ltd.: 2015 (39) STR 695 (Tri.-Bang.) Rent of marketing office Delta Energy Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2013 (31) STR 684 (Tri.-Del.) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2011 (22) STR 429 (Tri.-Bang.) Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE: 2009 (16) STR 707 (tri.-Del.) CCE Vs. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which credit taken has formed part of cost of production of final product and the Revenue has collected the Central Excise duty on that. He further submitted that various Courts have given very wide interpretation to the definition of input service and it includes all the services which are in relation to business. Further, each service has been held to be input service in the decision cited by the appellant which are given in the table above. By following the ratios of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra I am of the view that all these services fall in the definition of input service and the appellant has rightly taken the CENVAT credit on these impugned services and therefore, I allow the appeal of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
