2015 (8) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the input service credit of Rs. 16,45,097/- on input services, namely, "Training programme/Guest House Maintenance, Reimbursement of expenses of off - roll employees, Photostat charges" etc availed by the appellant did not qualify the definition of input service under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004. Details of Cenvat credit alleged in the show cause notice as not admissible are as under: S.No Name of the Party Service Description Total 1. M/s J&G Corporate Solutions Private Limited Training Programme/Guest House Maintenance 279470 2. M/s Sunrise House Keeping and Support Services Pvt. Ltd. Training Programme/Guest House Maintenance 75137 3. M/s Competent Personnel & Allied Services Pvt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport Services (P) Ltd. qualified as an input service for availing Cenvat credit. But however, on the appeal filed by appellants the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,79,470/- relating to Housekeeping services received from J & G Corporate Solutions (P) Ltd. The input service credit on Photo Copy charges and input service credit on Reimbursement of expenses incurred by off-roll employees were allowed. The appellant has hence preferred this appeal challenging the disallowance of input service credit of Rs. 2,79,470/- on 'Housekeeping services' provided by M/s J & G, Corporate Solutions (P) Ltd. 4. Thus the only issue that arises for consideration is whether "Training/guesthouse maintenance" services prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of input service. So also that the judgments quoted by the appellant no where speak about admissibility of housekeeping service at Guest House as input service. I cannot with hold from saying that this view is in total contradiction to the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the Order-in-Appeal whereby the "House-keeping Service provided by M/s Sunrise House keeping & Support Service Pvt. Ltd was upheld rejecting the appeal filed by the Department. 5. The appellants relied on the judgments rendered In L'Oreal India Private Limited Vs CCE, Pune -I -2011 (22) STR 89 (Tri -Mumbai), M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur -II 2014 -TIOL -656 -CESTAT -Del, CCE, Nasik Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 2014 - TIOL - 746-CESTAT-Mum. I....
TaxTMI