2017 (9) TMI 1051

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en considered by the High Court/Tribunal Cadila Healthcare Ltd’s case [2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Nash Industries’s case [2016 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and it has been held that credit on the said services is admissible being satisfies the definition of input service prescribed u/r 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/12007,12008/2014 - A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s issued on 26.7.2012 for recovery of the credit with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed on the Appellant Company and personal penalty of ₹ 81,000/- was imposed on the second appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for personal use, hence, eligible to credit. 5. The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) and could not place any judgement contrary to the ones placed on behalf of the Appellant. 6. The admissibility of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on afore- said services had been considered by the High Court/Tribunal Cadila Healthcare Ltd s case and Nash .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X