TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibuted. 2. The appellant Head Office is registered as an ISD. They have two units, one at Wagholi and another at Kanhe for manufacture of Motor-Vehicle Parts. As per show cause notice dated 01.10.2009 for the period May 2008 to November, 2008, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant-assessee had received input service credit for the services rendered to their unit at Wagholi but their Head Office have issued invoice under ISD (Rule 7 of CCR) and passed the credit to their Kanhe unit. It was further felt that the services are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products of the assessee at Kanhe and hence the total credit input with Cess Rs. 1,21,497/- appeared to be wrongly transferred and accordingly, the appellant was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide the impugned order has been pleased to reject the appeal holding that there is a lack of nexus, Rule 2 of CCR requires that services must be used "in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final product". The services in case is availed in relation to the final product manufactured in the Wagholi Unit. Therefore, clearly services availed in relation to manufacture of final product at Wagholfi Unit cannot be considered as input service for the manufacture of final product at Kanhe Unit. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal, Mr. C. Chandrasekharan, Assistant Manager Excise appeared for the appellant company. He draws attention to the provisions of Rule 7 of CCR 2004 as they stood prior to 3113.2012 whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utputs. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal. 6. Ld. AR for Revenue relied on the impugned order, further relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Nagpur Vs. Manikgrah Cement wherein in respect of input services being repair, maintenance and civil construction used in residential colony of respondent-assessee. It was held that under Rule 2(I) of CCR, welfare activities of the assessee are not covered by said expression. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the ruling in the case of Manikgrah Cement (supra) is of no help for the revenue. In the present appeal, the Revenue have not disputed the taking of Cenvat Credit under Rule 2(1) read with Rul....