9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in transit period - Held that:- I am unable to accede to the contentions of the Ld. DR for the reason that it is only an interim order based on the facts of that particular case which do not possess any binding value - the denial by the lower authorities is bad - credit allowed. Rental service - Held that:- The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I [2017 (12) TMI 1496 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that All the services have been held to be input service in various decisions relied upon by the appellant and the details of the invoices have also been given along with the appeal memorandum - credit allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transport of Household goods 1,041/- - - - 3. Insurance 154,390/- 55,563 6,995 67,210 4. Rent 66,352/- 14,03,253 9,55,046 i) Rent for building - 12,64,741 9,23,870 - ii) Rent for cafeteria 66,352/- 138,512 31,176 20,508 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of CENVAT Credit availed on services other than the travel expenses. I, therefore, set aside the disallowance upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeals on this issue. 5. With regard to the service at Sl. No. 2 in the above table, the Ld. Consultant submits that he is not pressing the above issue and requests that the same may be dismissed. Therefore, the grounds relating to this issue for both the years are dismissed. 6.1 On the issue at Sl. No. 3 Insurance Service it was submitted that the same related to the : a) Employees Group Mediclaim and Personal Accident Policy, and b) Assets of the company, which include furniture, leasehold assets, office equipment, plant and machinery, computers, servers, ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Bangalore-III in Interim Order No. 01/2018 and during the course of hearing, he drew my attention to paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the decision of LB (supra) to contend that the exclusion clause interpreted by the Larger Bench though in the light of Outdoor Catering Services would equally hold good for other services as well for the period post 01.04.2011 amendment. 9.1 I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the judgments relied on by the parties. I am unable to accede to the contentions of the Ld. DR for the reason that it is only an interim order based on the facts of that particular case which do not possess any binding value. 9.2 On the other hand, I find that this very Bench of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that for the period prior to 01.04.2011, the definition of input service was sufficient enough to cover any activity relating to business and with regard to the period after 01.04.2011, he relies on the interpretation of the following judgments : M/s. Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I 2017 (12) T.M.I. 1496 CESTAT Bangalore Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Verizon Data Services (I) (P) Ltd. 2014 (2) T.M.I. 1044 CESTAT Chennai C.C.E. Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) T.M.I. 13 Bombay High Court C.C.E. Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (4) T.M.I. 201 Karnataka High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
