2017 (1) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ir Service, Renting of Immovable Property, Security Agency Services amounting to Rs. 7,49,742/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Two only). The period involved in the present appeal is January 2011 to March 2011. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU manufacturing Bulk Pharmaceutical products. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 18,19,939/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine only) under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 being refund of accumulated unutilized cenvat credit towards exports during the quarter January 2011 to March 2011. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim partially to the tune of Rs. 8,76,589/- (Rupees Eight Lak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 511 (Tri.-Del.)]. In view of the judgments cited supra, I am of the view that Business Support Service, Management, Maintenance and Repair Service fall in the definition of input services and appellant is entitled to refund of the same. Now coming to the second allegation on which refund has been denied is that the services of Renting of Immovable Property is used at Mumbai Office and hence not eligible. To this the learned counsel submitted that the Mumbai premises of the appellant are used for regulatory activities which are directly related to the manufacture of pharmaceutical manufacturing, which is a legal pre-requisite of the Pharma Industry. It also includes regulatory activity pertaining to review of commercial documents, change c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or received in the factory of manufacture. Similarly he also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore III Vs. T.G. Kirloskar Automotive Pvt. Ltd. in respect of Central Excise Appeal Nos. 133 and 134/2009. Therefore keeping in view the ratio of the decision cited supra, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to refund of cenvat credit in respect of Renting of Immovable Property Services. The next input service on which the cenvat credit has been denied is that the Security Service is not received at Unit I but received at Unit II. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that Unit I and Unit II of the appellant are located at Plot No. 1 and 2 are having one centralized registration for providing output service ....