TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th service tax paid there-on was reflected as business expenses in the Books of Account, the disputed services should be considered as input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Rules for the period upto 31.03.2011. Under the amended definition of Rule 2 (l) ibid(with effect from 01.04.2011), the assessee is permitted to avail credit on any service used for providing the output service, excepting the excluded category of services mentioned in the definition of input service - The description of disputed services provided in the impugned order, do not fall under the excluded category provided under Rule 2(l) of the Rules. Therefore, denial of Cenvat benefit on the disputed services will not be proper and justified on the ground that those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax paid on the input services used for providing those output service. During the period between October, 2007 and March 2013, the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on various taxable services, including the service tax paid on repair and maintenance of staff quarters, expenses incurred towards staff welfare services, travelling expenses, membership fees etc. Availment of CENVAT Credit on those services were disputed by the department on the ground that such services have no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant and thus, such services cannot be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit. Show-cause proceedings initiated by the department were culminated into impugned order dated 16.09.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Technology Services (P) Ltd. - 2016 (44) STR 129 (c) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Greaves Cotton Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 703 (d) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Lupin Ltd. - 2012 (285) ELT 221 (Tri.) 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue submits that the disputed services are not conforming to the definition of input service and thus, the appellant should not be eligible for the Cenvat benefit. He further submits that to support itsclaim that the disputed services should qualify as input service, the appellant did not produce any evidence before the original authority. Thus, he submits that denial of Cenvat benefit by the original authority is proper and justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the disputed services, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documentary evidences to be produced by the appellant to establish that the disputed services are in fact, conforming to the definition of the input services and were used / utilized for providing the output service. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, we remand the matter to the original authority for passing of fresh adjudication order in line of our above observations. Needless to say that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant before deciding the issue afresh. It is made clear that all issues involved in this appeal are kept open, which should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
