9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e services being related to labour welfare legislation, the denial of credit is held unjustified - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant. CENVAT Credit - input services - Testing Charges - only case of Revenue is that the service was rendered at the sub-contractor’s end - Held that:- It is not the case of the Revenue that the same is not an eligible input service or that the above service was hit by the amended Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - denial is made on assumptions - decided in favor of appellant. CENVAT Credit - input services - Repair Charges for Canteen - Held that:- When running of canteen itself is held to be an allowable input service; maintaining is also a necessary service with timely repair work, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/42208/2017 12/2014 to 03/2015 Rent paid for storage of materials at TVS Logistics godown, Puzhal, Chennai (16,352/-) Penalty (8,176/-) 2. E/42209/2017 12/2014 to 03/2015 Air Travel Agent Service (690/-) Manpower Supply PF/ESI (84,422/-) Testing Charges at sub-contractor (2,793/-) 3. E/42210/2017 04/2015 to 05/2016 Air Travel Agent Service (1,541/-) Manpower Supply PF/ESI (40,103/-) Penalty (20,832/-) 4. E/42211/2017 12/2014 to 03/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments in support before the lower authorities and the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is that the appellant has not proved nexus and therefore hit by Rule 2(l) as amended. 6. With regard to the Manpower Supply Service which is a common ground in respect of Appeal Nos. E/42209, 42210, 42211 42212/2017, it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the above service was related to PF/ESI and professional service since the wages paid to the labourers were subject to PF/ESI which formed part of the total service cost against which service tax was charged by the service provider. In this regard, he relied on the decision of this Bench of the CESTAT in the appellant s own case for an earlier period reported in 2017 (51) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Per contra , Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. I find from the impugned Order that as observed hereinabove, the only reason given by the Revenue is that the service was rendered at the sub-contractor s end. It is not the case of the Revenue that the same is not an eligible input service or that the above service was hit by the amended Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. I find this observation relevant because the Commissioner (Appeals) has himself observed, without being certain, that such services . cannot possibly become input service . and hence, denial is made on assumptions. This ground of the appeal is therefore allowed. 11. The other grievance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
