9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital goods. Scope of service is not limited within the four corner of factory, even if same services are received by the appellant at any place directly or indirectly related to manufacture of activity or related to business activity of the assessee irrespective whether it is provided within the factory or out side the factory, credit is admissible. Therefore in my considered view so long as rental premises in the present case is used for manufacturing activity of factory unit, credit is admissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 85601 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85412 / 2022 - Dated:- 17-3-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant but at the EWH which had a separate registration, from where trading was undertaken. In the Order-in-Original the said proposals of show-cause notices were confirmed with interest and equivalent penalty. The legality of such order is questioned before this forum. 3. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that such confirmation of denial of CENVAT credit with interest and penalty is erroneous, in view of various decisions passed by this Tribunal including the decision reported in 2017 (52) STR 361 (Bom.) in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Endurance Technology Pvt. Ltd. that was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court which in clear terms laid down that CCR Rules do not say that input servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Seals Private Limited Vs. CCE [2015 (40) STR 594 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Raymond Limited Vs. CCE [2017 (47) STR 142 (Tri.- Del.)], Adbur Private Limited Vs. CST [2017 (5) GSTL 334 (Tri.- Del.)], Shrirarm General Insurance Company Limited Vs. CCE [ 2021 (44) GSTL 185 (Tri-Del.)] as well as basing on the findings of the adjudicating authority and appellate authority for the subsequent period prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department has argued in favour of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while acknowledging the finding in Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original respectively for the subsequent period be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
