9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing company would be eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ? 2. Whether, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding their the Board's Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 specifically clarifying that service tax paid on mobile phone is not eligible for cenvat credit is in applicable under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?" 3. Ms. Linhares, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that as per the circular dated 20.6.2004 at clause 2.8, mobile phones are not covered. The learned counsel has further pointed out that as the mobile phones were not covered and considering the saving clause in the Rules of 2003, the circular is still in force and, as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in Rules of 2004. The learned Counsel further points out that the input services were not defined under 2002 Rules and as such, the question of claiming that there are any corresponding Rules in 2004 is totally misplaced. The learned Counsel further submits that even upon reading of the definition of word "Input Services" in the Rules, 2004, it appears that every activity carried out by the respondent in connection with manufacturing of the goods are entitled for the credit. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the order passed by both the authorities to point out that the authorities have relied upon an order of the CESTAT to come to the conclusion that mobile phones were also included for such credit. The learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to the Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004 and any corresponding provisions thereof. The said Rules also provide that such Rules or any circulars should be relevant and should be consistent with Rules of 2004. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the word "Input Services" were not defined in the Rules of 2002. In such circumstances it cannot be said that there is any corresponding Rule in Rules of 2004 which can be said to have been saved. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly come to the conclusion that Rules 2002 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Such finding has been confirmed by the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services) in so far as they are used for- (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or] [(B) [service provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle], in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods; or [(BA) service of general insurance business, servicing, repair and maintenance, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods, except when used by- (a) a manufacturer of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor vehicle manufactured by such person; or (b) an insurance company in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
