9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy observed by me, the services received were received for mobilization of finance by IPO and for conducting study of the business plan and study done in relation to anti-collusion devices proposed to be manufactured by the appellants. All these activities, in my opinion, are clearly covered by the inclusive part of the definition. - appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund of CENVAT credit taken by them and therefore the impugned order has no merits and has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/1186/2010-SM - - - Dated:- 2-3-2015 - B S V Murthy, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr B V Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr N Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing . 5. After going through the records and after hearing the learned counsel, I find that the services were received by the appellant from BOB Capital Markets Ltd. relating to professional fee for preparing a business plan appraising the same and work relating to public issue, the services received from Allianze Securities Ltd. relating to filing of public issue offer document, Sameer Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. for professional charges in relation to IPO and for preparing the complete study of commercial and financial aspects of anti-collusion devices in Sri Lanka and South Africa and services received from Shriyam Broking Intermediary Ltd. as fee for acting as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the inclusive part of the definition. 8. I also find that the claim of the learned counsel that paragraph 31 of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.)] is applicable to the facts of the present case is correct and the same is reproduced below for better appreciation. 31. In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) in the context of the definition of 'input' in Rule 2(k) of 2004 Rules would equally apply while interpreting the expression activities relating to business in Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. No doubt that the inclusive part of the definition of input is restricted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
