9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas entities. The appellant claim refund of unutilized cenvat credit for the quarter Jan - Mar, 2017 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 readwith Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that there is no nexus between input service and output service. Moreover, some of the services, the appellant was not entitled to avail cenvat credit as they do not qualify as 'Input Service' in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it was not questioned at the time of availing the cenvat credit on the input services in question; therefore, at the time of filing the refund claim, the admissibility of cenvat credit cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been rejected only on the premise that the services in question are not 'Input Service' as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that the Renting of Immovable Property for parking space is a part of the output service as without that space the persons visit to the office of the appellant cannot reach to the office and for that purpose, the parking space is required. Therefore, these parking space is necessary for providing the output services of the appellant. In that circumstances, Renting of Immovable Property for Parking Space is entitled to cenvat credit. 6. Another issue for Supply of Tangible Goods for Cafeteria, I find that the employees of an output service provider are required to avail the services of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and has recorded as under:- "8. Having considered the rival contentions I find that so far the first issue is concerned, as to whether or not the services in question qualify as input services for the business of the respondent assessee in terms of rule 2 (l) of the CCR 2004, I have already observed that some of the services in question are already specified in rule 2 (l), and I find that each of the service is required by the respondent assessee in providing its output service. The disallowance of input credit in part is also bad and without jurisdiction in absence of notice under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. As regards the next issue with respect to remuneration paid to Mr. Pooran Tripathi, I find that the very essential fact is absent in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
