2017 (7) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... provided by M/s. Transenergy Ltd., are not exclusively utilized by the appellants, rather, they are common to other companies functioning in the same premises. Hence proceedings were initiated against both the appellants, which were confirmed by the concerned adjudicating authority and also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence both the appellants are before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing 0n behalf of both appellants, Shri Ld. Advocate Shri M. Kannan submits that M/s. Transenergy Ltd., has taken the land wherein the appellants are having their manufacturing premises, along with other assessees and where Transenergy also has a manufacturing facility. He submits that as per sub-lease agreement entered into ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A. Cletus, ADC, submits that the documents on which the disputed credit has been availed by the appellant cannot be considered as eligible documents for the purpose of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Ld. AR contends that Transenergy is neither an input service provider nor the actual provider of the services. The invoices contain only indication of common services provided without indicating the specific service/services which relate to the said invoices. As such, it is not possible to ascertain whether the services availed are eligible input services for the purpose of Rule 2 (l) of the Rules. He further contends that some of the services like road maintenance, painting of the compound wall, car, scooter and cycle parking sheds etc., have n....