2015 (12) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese were not used in or in relation to the manufacturing and clearances of the final products 'from OR upto the place of removal'? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law to allow the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax availed by the respondent on the services on the principle that the cost of services formed part of production of the goods by ignoring the definition of 'input services'; especially when it is a settled proposition of law that the Cenvat Credit Rules and the valuation provisions are independent of each other?" 2. Essentially, the issue pertains to the respondent/ assessee availing Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid by them on various services, such as 'Rent-a-Cab&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether the noticee is entitled to the Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on certain services as availed by them in the guise of input service as per definition given in rule 2 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Such services, of which eligibility as input service for availing cenvat credit is to be decided, are collectively mentioned hereunder, for both the show cause notices: ".....In view of the above, I find nothing contrary to the ratios of various judgments relied upon by the noticee in the facts and circumstances of instant cases rather observe substance in the contention of the noticee for having all the above eleven activities related to their business directly or indirectly well within the purview of 'input service' as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing terms: "3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the issue involved is denial of input service credit on Outdoor Catering Service, Rent-a-Cab service and Travel Agent Service. Both the authority below allowed the credit following various decisions of the Tribunal. Revenue in their grounds of appeal stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) followed by the decision of the Tribunal in the cae of CCE, Mumbai v. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tribunal-LB). It is contended that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of GTC Industries (supra) does not appear to correct. In my considered view, the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal cannot make any observation on the correctness of the decision of Larger Bench ....