2015 (2) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n appeal against the impugned order wherein input service has been denied to them on the premise that as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 they do not qualify as input service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods. During the course of manufacturing activity, the appellant availed the following services:- (a) Admin Housekeeping (b) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 369 (Bom.) and prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the records I find that the appellant used the services mentioned here-in-above during the course of manufacturing of goods as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT credit as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X