Appellants win dispute over cenvat credit on input services under CCR.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them the disputed cenvat credit on specific input services. The Tribunal emphasized the broad definition of "input" or "input services" in the CCR and ruled that as long as the primary condition of usage in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or output service was met, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal found that the appellants had satisfied this condition, leading to the conclusion that the credit of the disputed input services was available to them.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on certain input services by the department.
- Adjudication of show cause notices by the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner.
- Appeals filed by the appellants against the denial of credit.
- Disputed input services in different appeals.
- Applicability of judgments and usage of input services.
- Arguments presented by the appellants and the department.
- Analysis of the issue and decision by the Tribunal.

The case involved the denial of cenvat credit on specific input services by the department, leading to show cause notices issued to the appellants. The Commissioner and Joint Commissioner adjudicated the notices, with subsequent appeals filed by the appellants challenging the denial of credit. The disputed input services included Business Auxiliary Service, Consulting Engineers, Landscaping services, Warehousing services, Housekeeping service, Fabrication and Boiler Services, Bio Medical Waste Disposal Service, and Pest Control. The appellants sought to recover a total cenvat credit amount of Rs. 73,36,428 + Rs. 50,03,454 through the impugned orders.

In the detailed analysis of the input services under dispute, the appellants presented a table showing the usage and relevant judgments for each service. The Tribunal examined the issue and found that the definition of "input" or "input services" in the CCR was broad. As long as the primary condition of the use of input or input service in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or output service was met, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "in or in relation" encompassed the entire range of activities undertaken by the appellants. Therefore, based on the judgments cited and the interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the credit of the disputed input services was available to the appellants.

During the proceedings, the department reiterated the findings of the original adjudication orders. After hearing both sides and examining the submissions and records, the Tribunal determined that the issue raised in the impugned orders was settled by the cited judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential reliefs as per the law. The decision was pronounced in court, providing a favorable outcome for the appellants regarding the disputed cenvat credit on input services.

---