2017 (1) TMI 1506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e [2016 (6) TMI 1222 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], this Tribunal has already allowed the appellant’s appeals by holding the disputed service as input service and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. K Hariharan, Advocate - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The appellant has filed these four appeals arising out of the common impugned order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund claim of CENVAT credit in relation to labour contract service, office maintenance, staff training expenses, subscription .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the documentary evidence on record and without properly appreciating the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that impugned orders are contrary to the binding judicial precedents wherein the Tribunal and the High Court in various decisions have held all the disputed services as an input service. He further submitted that substantial amount of refund relates to first four appeals of 2013 and the period involved is before 1.4.2011. He also submitted that out of the disputed amount, more than 90% amount of refu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) CCE Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.-HC) (viii) CCE, Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd.: 2008 (12) STR 598 (Tri.-Mum.) (ix) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) (x) Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 F. No.354/268/2009-TRU (xi) Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (xii) CST, Delhi Vs. Convergys India Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tri.-Del.) 4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide various Final Order No.20453/2016 dated 23.6.2016 and Final Order No.20438/2016 dated 20.6.2016 have allowed the appeals of the appellant with regard to the same input services which are involved in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X