2017 (5) TMI 1576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant by denying the CENVAT credit on various input services. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of providing renting of immovable property services falling under the taxable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to binding judicial precedents. He also submitted that these services on which C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r construction, any input service used for providing output service and activities relating to business of assessee is eligible input service. Similarly in the case of CCE vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, it has been held by the Honble High Court of Karnataka that input services used for activities relating to business of assessee are eligible input services, even if they are used for e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X