2015 (1) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Fitness Serviceetc. The adjudicating authority has disallowed the credit of Rs. 26,08,657/- availed on the above services and confirmed demand along with interest. The respondents filed appeal against the Order-in-Original and the lower appellate authority has set aside the order and allowed their appeal. Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order. 2. The Ld. AR reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that on the input credits on various services has no nexus with the services provided by the respondents. He submits that service tax availed on sodexo coupons is no way related to the business activity of the respondent. It is only free coupons given to their employees. He relies upon the following case laws:- 1. CCE, Ahmeda....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 577 )Bom.) 2. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu (I) (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) 3. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar.) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records and written submissions. The respondents are registered under service tax for rendering output services under Business Auxiliary Service, Consulting Engineers service and online information service. They availed input service credit on Rent-a-Cab Service, Outdoor Catering, Business Auxiliary Service, Insurance service, Pandal & Shamiana, Testing and Analysis, and Health & Fitness Service. The adjudicating authority has disallowed the credit of Rs. 26,08,657/- wrongly....