9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 23/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-original rejecting the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 3,14,742/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants, a 100% EOU, are manufacturers of preserved gher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by misconstruing the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR. He further submitted that on the impugned input services, the Commissioner(Appeals) in the appellant's own case has allowed the refund by holding the same as input services, He further submitted that the substantial amount of refund has been sanctioned but an amount of Rs. 3,14,742/- has been rejected, out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear to be more administrative in nature and cannot be said to be input service in relation to manufacturing activity. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also rejected the refund by holding that the said services are not connected with the business and no nexus with the manufacturing activity. Learned consultant submitted that in the appellant's own case for different period, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 2(I) has to be given wider interpretation so as to include all services which are received in or in relation to the business of the assessee. Therefore by following the ratios of the various judgments and also the fact that Commissioner(Appeals) in the appellant's own case has given the benefit by holding the said services as input services, I hold that the appellant is eligible for refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
