2016 (8) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR  for the appellant Sh. Rahul Tangri, C.A. for the respondent ORDER Being aggrieved  with the order passed by the Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2.  After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Yogesh Agarwal, ld. DR for the Revenue and Sh. Rahul Tangri, ld. Advocate for the assessee, we find that the respondent are engaged in providing of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the assessee and the same are also not covered by the definition of "input". 4.  On the other hand, ld. Advocate appearing  for the respondent has brought to our notice the Tribunal's decision in the case of RSWM Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II - 2015 (37) STR 1074 (Tri. Del.) as also of  Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aditya Cement vs. Union of Indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e construction of jetty  and  other  commercial  building,  which were being used for providing the output services.  The Hon'ble High Court held that without the construction of jetty or the other commercial building, the output service cannot be provided.  As such, the material used in the construction of jetty was held to be cenvatable. 6.  We find tha....