Appeal allowed, order set aside, matter remanded for detailed examination of Cenvat benefit eligibility.

The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order denying Cenvat benefit is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority for a detailed examination of whether the disputed services qualify as input services under both the un-amended and amended definitions of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority is directed to consider the appellant's submissions, judicial pronouncements, and conduct a thorough fact-finding process before making a fresh decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat benefit on various disputed services.
2. Definition and scope of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Examination of eligibility for Cenvat credit for the period from April 2009 to March 2015.
4. Proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices for determining eligibility.
5. Remand to the original authority for proper fact-finding and consideration of judicial pronouncements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat benefit on various disputed services:
The authorities denied the Cenvat benefit on the ground that the disputed services do not conform to the definition of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant submitted a chart detailing the disputed services, reasons for denial, and their submissions supporting the availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the disputed services fall within the definition of input service both before and after the amendment to Rule 2(l). The appellant relied on various judicial pronouncements to support their stand.

2. Definition and scope of 'Input Service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The pre-amended definition of input service (effective up to 31.03.2011) was broad and comprehensive, including the phrase "activities relating to business." This meant that any service availed by a service provider for business purposes should be considered an input service. The amended definition (effective from 01.04.2011) also had a wide scope, including "any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service." However, certain excluded categories were specified, which would not be considered input services.

3. Examination of eligibility for Cenvat credit for the period from April 2009 to March 2015:
The period of dispute is from April 2009 to March 2015. To ascertain eligibility for Cenvat credit, the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) is crucial. Both the pre-amended and post-amended definitions need to be considered. The appellant's case falls under both definitions, requiring a thorough examination of the services availed during this period.

4. Proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices for determining eligibility:
The judgment emphasized the need for a proper examination of contracts, documents, and invoices to determine whether the disputed services qualify as input services for Cenvat benefit. The original authority is required to conduct a detailed fact-finding process to ascertain the eligibility of the disputed services.

5. Remand to the original authority for proper fact-finding and consideration of judicial pronouncements:
The impugned order denying the Cenvat benefit was set aside. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a proper finding on whether the disputed services qualify as input services under both the un-amended and amended definitions. The original authority is instructed to examine the appellant's submissions, including judicial pronouncements, and the details provided in the submitted chart. The appellant should be granted an opportunity for a personal hearing before a fresh decision is made.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for a thorough examination and proper finding on the eligibility of the disputed services for Cenvat credit. The original authority must consider the appellant's submissions, judicial pronouncements, and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before deciding the issue afresh.

---