TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n impugned order dt. 21/11/2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and rejected the refund on certain input services on account of nexus. Since the input services involved in both the appeals are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of appeals are as under: - Appeal No. Period Refund ST/20243/2015 October 2011 to march 2012 Rs.21,39,518/- ST/20244/2015 April 2011 to September 2011 ₹ 16,81,558/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the order of the original authority as credit of only catering and insurance services were denied by the original authority. However, the appellate authority examines and denied credit on other services also which is not permitted under law. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following two decisions: - i. CC vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006(201) ELT 513 (SC)] ii. Saurabh Organics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2012(275) ELT 582 (Tri. Mumbai)] 4.2. He further submitted that in the appellant's own case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . vs. CCE [2014(201) ECR 456 (Tri. Delhi)] Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Vs. CST [2017(12) TMI 768-CESTAT Bangalore] Tour Operator Services Netcracker Technologies Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2017(4) GSTL 10 (Tri. Hyd)] Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009(14) STR 316 (Tri. Bang)] CCE, Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India 2008 12 STR 598 (Tri. Mumbai)] Outdoor Catering Services Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 45 STR 383 (Tri. Mumbai)] Insurance Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009(14) STR 316 (Tri. Bang)] CCE Vs. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. [2017(47) STR 85 (Tri. Chan.)] Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To counter this arguments of the learned AR, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even after the amendment from 01/04/2011, these services have been held to be input services. He specifically relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (cited supra) wherein these services have been held to be input services even after the amendment in the definition of input service. The learned counsel further submitted that these services are not used purely for personal use or consumption of the employees and has been used for rendering output service and also to comply with the statutory obligation under various Acts and other Labour laws. 6. By following the ratio of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
