9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange necessary advice to be given to them by experts. This advisory arrangement during the period of dispute (February to July 2008) was made under an agreement between the appellant and M/s. Supreme Detective and Security Services. Under this agreement dated 18.04.2006 between the appellant and M/s. Supreme Detective and Security Services (SDSS for short), the latter was liable to provide certain services mentioned in an annexure to the agreement, to the farmers within the prescribed time. One of the scheduled services was "seasonal advisory farmer activities". The mode of rendition of this service has been briefly discussed in the impugned order itself as follows: "In the instant case, in order to ensure quality, quantity and yield of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cultivation. These allegations were denied and the demands raised in the show-cause notice were contested by the appellant. The original authority, in adjudication of the dispute, denied CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 2,48,193/- (service tax and education cess paid on the aforesaid services by M/s. SDSS) to the appellant and ordered recovery thereof with interest. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant. An appeal filed by the party with the Commissioner (Appeals) did not succeed. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the services in question were received by them from M/s. SDSS under an agreement between them though it was ultimately utilized by the farmers. In oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of cigarettes. On a perusal of the said agreement, the services are found to have been used by tobacco farmers for yielding good quality tobacco fit for use in the manufacture of quality Cigarettes. Obviously, the services were provided by M/s. SDSS to the farmers on behalf of the appellant. The appellant, who paid for the services and included the amount in the cost of production of cigarettes, cannot be held otherwise than to be the service recipients. 6. The next and the more important issue to be considered is whether the requisite nexus has been established between the services and the manufacture of cigarettes. In my view, it has been established. As per its definition under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, 'input servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the activity of manufacturing of paper and paper boards. This decision appears to be of support to the present appellant. Though it is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court, undisputedly, there is no stay of its operation. 7. In the instant case, however, I would like to take a view on the issue raised before me, independently. I have already found (a) that the appellant is the service-recipient as they paid for the services of M/s. SDSS and did not recover the same from the farmers and (b) that they have established a nexus between the services and the manufacture of their final product (cigarettes) by showing that the services were ultimately utilized for producing good quality tobacco which was required for the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
