TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant being 100% EOU are manufactures and exporters of bulk drugs. They filed refund claim for Rs. 1,36,09,511/- for the period from October 2012 to December 2012 being the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on inputs, input services and credit availed on services distributed through Input Service Distribution (ISD) in terms of Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006. The original authority after following the due process of law has rejected the claim on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) partially allowed the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 50,868/- on input ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (A) has disallowed an amount of Rs. 29,26,612/- for corporate sharing on the ground that CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 has no mechanism to avail CENVAT credit based on just allocation by the corporate office and further, that there is no proper mechanism of allocating the credit through ISD as envisaged under Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned CA for the appellant submitted that the impugned order partially rejecting the refund claim is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the provisions of CCR, 2004 and by ignoring the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. He further submitted that the impugned order has denied the refund of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of removal. * Delta Energy Systems Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (31) STR 684 (Tri.-Del.) * Adani Pharmachem (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (238) ELT 179 (Tri.) * CCE vs. Pokarna Ltd.: 2013 (292) ELT 316 (Tri.-Bang.) * Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane-I: 2016 (43) STR 209 (Tri.-Mum.) * CCE vs. Encore Natural Polymers Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (39) STR J34 (Guj.) Garden maintenance These services are used for maintenance of garden, which is mandatory under Factories Act for the pharmaceutical industries. * CCE vs. Lupin Ltd.: 2012 (28) STR 291 (Tri.) * Mukand Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur: 2016 (42) STR 88 (Tri.-Mum.) * Sterlite Industries India Ltd. vs. CCE, Madurai: 2016 (41) STR 867 (Tri.-Chennai) * HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ERP Implementation, Payroll, Statutory Compliance, etc., These services are very much essential for obtaining legal services and other clarifications for the manufacturing activity carried on by the appellant. * M/s. Heartland Bangalore Transcription Services (P) Ltd. vs. CST: 2011 (21) STR 430 (Tri.-Bang.) * CCE vs. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd.: 2008 (11) STR 266 (Tri.-Bang.) * M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CST: 2016-TOIL-2392-CESTAT-MUM. Manpower Supply Appellant being a pharmaceutical company, in terms of Regulatory Standards they are required to ensure they have a clean and hygienic environment suitable to manufacture drugs. * HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida: 2015 (40) STR 1124 (Tri.-Del.) * Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the invoice is addressed to registered office, however, the services were used for manufacturing activity and the said credits are within the purview of input service definition. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.). He further submitted that with regard to freight inward; ISD; erection, commissioning and installation charges, the refund has been rejected on the ground that the invoices were not provided, the appellant submitted that if the case is remanded back to the original authority, the same would be produced before him. He further submitted that the Corporate Office of the appellant is having ISD registration and by virtue of the ISD r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant and perusal of the material on record and the decisions relied upon by the learned CA for the appellant, I am of the view that as far as inputs services viz., AMC, calibration charges, freight outward, garden maintenance are concerned, they fall in the definition of input service and the refund has been wrongly rejected. With regard to erection, commissioning and installation service and the labour charges, I am of the opinion that this needs to be verified by the original authority on the basis of documents which may be submitted by the appellant. Further, I also hold that other services viz., Banking and Financial Service, Consultancy charges, manpower supply, rent charges, implementation charges, they also fall in the definitio....