TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the place of removal. This is an absurd opinion of the revenue for the reason that all the services which are used for the business activity need not to be related to directly in manufacturing of the final product or clearance of the final product. The said services can be used either in the factory or even outside the factory but in relation to the business activity of the assessee. There is no dispute that all of these services in question were used for the business activity of the appellant. Reliance placed in the case of CHEMFAB ALKALIS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY [ 2009 (10) TMI 697 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING WEAVING MILLS AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal. 2. Shri. Shailesh Sheth, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that all the services in question were either used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product or for the business activity of the appellant company, therefore, the services which are also falling in the inclusion Clause of the definition of input service are admissible input service. In the definition for the services in inclusion Clause need not to be used in relation to the manufacture but if the same are used for overall business activity it is qualified as input service. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE-2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs. CCE-2913 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the final product or clearance of the final product. The said services can be used either in the factory or even outside the factory but in relation to the business activity of the assessee. There is no dispute that all of these services in question were used for the business activity of the appellant. Moreover, on the same services in various judgments the Cenvat credit was allowed which are cited below. Hindustan Ltd Vs. CCE-2014 (33) STR 305 (Tri.-DEL.) Chemfab Alkalies Ltd vs. CCE-2010 (251) ELT 264 (Tri.-Chennai) Dharmendra Textile Processors-2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC.) Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills -2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC.) Mehta Co. -2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC.) 4.1 In view of the above judgments and my finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
