9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the respondent-assessee – Held that:- Relying upon the decision in the cases of CCE Pune Vs Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 402 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] ; CCE Hyderabad Vs Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 229 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] held that housekeeping, gardening services and construction of compound wall are the services which are required in furtherance of business activity and manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004. An objection was raised by Central Excise Audit officers that the appellants, during the financial years 2006-2007 to 2007-2008, had paid Rs.5,25,426/- to the service provider for gardening, housekeeping and construction of compound wall and availed the CENVAT Credit of Rs.64,066/- of Service Tax paid on the said services. Further, for the subsequent period i.e. April 2008 to January 2009, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has confirmed and ordered to recover the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.81,152/- along with appropriate interest and imposed penalty equal to the Service Tax demand of Rs.81,152/-. 5. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the credit of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011-TIOL-172-CESTAT-MAD. 7. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that following three decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal, has taken a view and produces the copies of following judgments. a) CCE Pune Vs Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 535 (Tri-Mumbai) b) CCE Hyderabad Vs Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 52 (Tri-Bang.) c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of business activity and manufacturing of final product. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturer of a final product and the services were rendered in respect of such unit. 10. In view of the foregoing and binding judicial pronouncements, I find that the impugned order is correct and does not require interference. 11. Appeal is rejected. (Dictated Pronounced in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
