2018 (8) TMI 1498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... input service included the words ‘activities relating to business’ - denial of credit unjustified. Penalty u/r 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- Since the major credit of business development service has been set aside, the penalty is also unwarranted and requires to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. Y .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant. The period involved is June, 2010 to August, 2010 and, therefore, the said services are covered within the definition of input service as it stood during the relevant period. She relied upon the decision in the case of FLOWSERVE SANMAR LTD. Vs. CCE Chennai, 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 375 (Tribunal - Chennai). 3. The learned AR, Shri R. Subramaniyan, supported the findings in the impugned order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lty is unwarranted and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. 6. The impugned order, to the extent of denying credit of business development service, is set aside, as well as the penalty imposed, without disturbing the remaining part of the order. The appeal is allowed partly in above terms, with consequential reliefs, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Case laws, Decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X