9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per: S. S. Garg These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has disposed of three appeals by upholding the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Assessee filed three appeals but one appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.1.2014 for the subsequent period pertaining to April 2011 to November 2011. These two appeals pertain to the period prior to April 2011. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Amount involved Penalties Imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Space Campus are not used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture and clearance of final products. As such, the appellants are not eligible to avail the credit on the services rendered at the premises of Eco Campus. Therefore, three show cause notice dated 4.1.2011, 3.10.2011 and 8.12.2011 were issued to the appellants with a proposal to disallow and recover the irregularly availed credits, demanding interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority after observing the principles of natural justice in the Orders-in-Original has confirmed the demanded irregular CENVAT credit availed under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A of the Act along with the interest under Section 11AA on the said amount and also imposed penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he input services have been received at the premises other than the appellant's premises. He further submitted that the services have not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product by the appellant and thus not an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR. He also submitted that the courier services and housekeeping service are not relating to the manufacturing process and clearance of final product. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and also the earlier decision allowing the appeal of the appellant vide Final Order dated 23.1.2014, I find that there is nothing wrong in distributing the credit through ISD invoices; simply on the ground that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
