2017 (9) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I [2017 (8) TMI 705 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where this Tribunal has allowed credit on all the input services involved in the present case for the period October 2012 to September 2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against two impugned order No.35/20014 dated 30.1.2015 and No.38/2015 dated 30.1.2015. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of both .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the demand of ₹ 16,19,047/- and allowed the input service tax credit of ₹ 25,224/- on Testing and Certification and Training Service and demanded applicable interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 16,19,047/- under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the appellant is a pharmaceutical company and are required to follow good manufacturing practices for producing drugs as per the Regulations. They had to incur expenses for various repairs and maintenance work as per the requirement of the Regulating Authority. The Commissioner (A) after considering the submissions of the appellant rejected the appeal and hence, the present appeal. 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) * Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2017 (49) STR 88 (Tri.-Hyd.) * Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Mumbai: 2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4.1 She further submitted that as per the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) is only in respect of works contract service and construction service used for construction or execution of works 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. In order to prove that the appellant had not raised any civil structure, the appellant has produced invoices, the statement containing the deta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X