2018 (1) TMI 461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice dated 05/12/2011, it appeared to revenue that the aforementioned services availed by the assessee do not fall under the category of input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 in as much as the said services are provided outside the factory premises and are not used by the appellant-assessee directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products and its clearance upto the place of removal. The period of credit in dispute is November 2010 to August 2011. 3. The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 29.06.2012 whereby the proposed demand of Rs. 47,160/- was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les, 2004. On this issue learned Counsel states that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that the services have been provided to a particular employee. As such the exclusion clause is not applicable in the facts of their case. She further relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I - 2016 (334) ELT 3 (S.C.), wherein the question before the Larger Bench of Supreme Court was - whether the definition of the term 'input' in rule 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 is to be understood to include items beyond the six items mentioned specifically in Rule 2(g). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word 'include' in the statute definition is generally used to....