9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct of the appellant and the same is covered under Rule 2(l) of the CCR - Credit allowed. - E/1702/12-Mum - A/97/13/SMB/C-IV , S/75/13/SMB/C-IV - Dated:- 13-12-2012 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri Sachin Chitnis, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S Dewalwar, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he activity is not integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of final product, the service would not qualify to be a input service under Rule 2(1) of the 2004 Rules. 3.1 The learned Advocate further relied on the decision in the case of Union of India vs. HEG Ltd.- 2011 (24) S.T.R. 275 (Chattisgarh). In that case, the issue of telephones installed at the residence of the offici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices installed at the residence of the offence have no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant, therefore, credit should not be allowed. He further relied on para 29 of the decision of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that input service should have direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be upheld. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the issue under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but there is no whisper at all with regard to Input service as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. Moreover, the decision of the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
