2017 (12) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be an input service as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules because it is directly connected with the output service - expenses incurred towards maintenance of building has been considered to be an input service as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules because it is directly connected with the output service. Further, the expenses towards maintenance of building forms part of the rent agreement and therefore, there is a nexus between the input service and the services exported - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Nitesh Kancharia, Sr. Manager, B. M. R. & Associates, For the Appellant Mr. Naveen Kushalappa, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant is before me. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order allowing the appeal of the Department is wrong and illegal and not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Rules and also by ignoring the binding judicial precedent on the identical issue. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has not considered the written submissions filed before him. He further submitted that the expenses incurred towards maintenance of building come within the inclusive part of input service as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, and duly qualify as eligible input service. In support of this subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (A) has rejected refund of the appellant on the ground that the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been amended to exclude the words activities relating to business from 1.4.2011 and therefore, the CENVAT Credit pertaining to maintenance of building has been rejected. Further, he has observed that the appellant has not provided any documentary evidence to justify the nexus between the input service of building maintenance and output service. Further, I also find that even after the amendment in the definition of input service, there is no requirement of correlation between the input and output services. Further, in all the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, expenses incurred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X