TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... records. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and set aside the Orders-in-Original which confirmed reversal of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the cab services, telephones and professional charges raised by the Chartered Accountants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following findings in the Order-in-Appeal No. 56/2009 (V-II) CE, dated 31-8-2009 :- "7. With regard to "Cab services" the same issue has been decided vide Order-in-Appeal No. 37/2008 (V-II) CE dated 29-8-2008 passed by me in favour of the appellants wherein it was viewed that cab services availed by the appellant to provide transportation of their officials is essential for timely completion of job and hence it cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which includes activities relating to business. As the issue relates to the business of the appellant and the charges incurred were paid by the company and the service tax was paid on such input service. I find no reason to deny the benefit. In view of the above findings, I pass the following order. ORDER The OIO is set aside and appeal is allowed." 4. Against such an order, the Revenue has come in appeal on the following grounds :- (i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner at Para 4(I) of the OIO No. 14/2009/(TR)/RJY/CEX, dt 24-4-2009, observed that "these services were utilized for the conveyance of their officers/managers and other individuals of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taken on the input services, is without any logic and rationale and hence cannot be accepted. (iii) From the above findings of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, it is clear that the Cab services are (i) used by the officials & other individuals of the company that too for their personal use and assessees did not produce any evidence either direct or corroborative to show that such service used by their EMPLOYEES is in or in relation to manufacturing activity. Therefore, it is clear that the claim made by APPM is not authentic as (i) the CAB SERVICES to their EMPLOYEES was purely for personal reasons like comfort & is a welfare measure only as a part of the employment. On the other hand, assessee failed to prove that providing of....