9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the impugned service as input service because "input service" has been clearly defined in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and if every service which forms part of cost of production (CAS-4) is to be treated as service in relation to activities relating to business, then there was no need to define input service in the manner it has been done. Indeed the said ground would render several words of the definition redundant. It is settled law that statute should be so interpreted as not to render, to the extent possible, the words used by legislature redundant. The said judgement of CESTAT is a Single Member judgement. On the other hand, the Division Bench judgement of CESTAT in the appellant's own case (supra) cited by ld. Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit was permitted. 2. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand stated that transport of children of staff from appellant's colony to school and back is not an activity relating to business and therefore the impugned credit is not admissible. He referred to the judgement of CESTAT in appellant's own case - [2013-TIOL-287-CESTAT-DEL]. 3. I have considered the contentions of both sides. The definition of input service during the relevant period given in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is reproduced below:- input service means any service,- (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be treated as service in relation to activities relating to business, then there was no need to define input service in the manner it has been done. Indeed the said ground would render several words of the definition redundant. It is settled law that statute should be so interpreted as not to render, to the extent possible, the words used by legislature redundant. The said judgement of CESTAT is a Single Member judgement. On the other hand, the Division Bench judgement of CESTAT in the appellant's own case (supra) cited by ld. Departmental Representative has clearly held that rent a cab service availed for transportation of children of employees from colony to school and back is not an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
