Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (8) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the period of dispute is October 2012 to September 2013, which is after the amendment in the definition of ‘input service’ as contained in Rule 2(l) whereby the ‘outdoor catering service’ has been excluded from the definition of ‘input service’. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/20503/2015-SM - 21019/2017 - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Neetu James, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy. N.K, AR - For the Respondent Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Brief .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow goods manufacturing practice guidelines and for producing the drugs as per the Regulations, they had to incur expenses for various repair and maintenance work as per the directions of regulating authority. The Commissioner (A) after considering the submissions of the appellant rejected the appeal and hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the authorities and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. She has also submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. She further submitted that appellants have received input ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rks contract of a building or civil structure or part thereof, Whereas the services availed by the appellant are not related to construction of building or civil structure and therefore the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l)(A) of CCR will not apply. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that appellants have utilized the services towards construction activity such as removing of earth pit, painting, room partitioning and piping work, electrical services which are out of the purview of definition of input service . He further submitted that the impugned services do not have any nexus directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, the availmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates