https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341876 The appeals were partially allowed as the judge determined that garden maintenance services did not qualify as eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they did not contribute to the manufacturing process. Penalties were set aside due to the conflicting interpretations on the service's eligibility. Tax liabilities were upheld, resulting in the appellants succeeding partially in challenging the denial of input service credit for garden maintenance services. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341876 The appeals were partially allowed as the judge determined that garden maintenance services did not qualify as eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they did not contribute to the manufacturing process. Penalties were set aside due to the conflicting interpretations on the service's eligibility. Tax liabilities were upheld, resulting in the appellants succeeding partially in challenging the denial of input service credit for garden maintenance services. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341876