9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 - all these services fall in the definition of ‘input service’ and the appellant has rightly taken the CENVAT credit on these impugned services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21422/2017-SM - 22735/2017 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Mohd. Rahim, Advocate K.S. Ravi Shankar - For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 3.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A), wherein Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz., transformers falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for availing irregular CENVAT credit and after following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 6.3.2014 confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal; hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the definition of input service in rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). He further submitted that all the services on which CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inition of input service as the same has been spent on the employees. It forms part of the employee cost i.e., direct and indirect labour and the appellant has factored and included the expenditure towards employees welfare in the cost of production of the final product i.e., in CAS-4. He further submitted that this aspect has not been disputed by the lower authorities and therefore, these services would fall within the ambit of input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR. He further relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that once the cost incurred by the service has to be added to the cost, and is so assessed, it is a recogniti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
