TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed beyond the place of removal after sale of goods. Therefore, the said service is not an input service in terms of Rule 21(I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 3. Considering the fact that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nashik vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2012 (28) STR 382 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "5.1 The first issue by the learned A.R. is that after sales service of the vehicle is not an 'input service' on the ground that the service has been availed after sale of the vehicle and expenses incurred towards manufacture of the vehicle are entitled for input service credit. We have gone through the Section 4(3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Danke Products (supra) wherein the facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of electrical transformers and those were cleared on payment of duty. As per the terms of contract, the assessee was under obligation to repair and maintain the transformers during the warranty period free of charge. Those job of repair and maintenance was entrusted to 3rd person who raised bills for repair and maintenance on assessee in turn the assessee took input service credit. The issue was dealt with by the Tribunal. In that case wherein the Tribunal has observed as under :- "The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether such availment of service tax paid by DEL is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arty and returned back to GEB without routing through the Appellants is not relevant for determining as to who was the actual receiver of the services in this case. The movement of transformer from GEB to the repairer and back to GEB was an arrangement for convenience between the Appellants and M/s. Danke Electricals and M/s. GEB to avoid unnecessary movement of the transformers. The fact remains that in these cases, the repairer has no direct relation/agreement with GEB in respect of the said repairs etc. and these repairs were undertaken by the repairer at the instance of the Appellants (who are also the manufacturers of the goods) and on their behalf and were paid for by the Appellants. In view of the above reasons as well as the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance of the same was a legal obligation of the respondents. As such, I find no reason to take a view different than one taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Apart from the above, the appellate authority has viewed the problem from angle, when he observed as under : "4.5 Assuming, though not admitting, for the sake of argument that the services have been provided by M/s. Danke Electricals to M/s. GEB on behalf of the appellants, then the service would be appropriately classifiable as "Business Auxiliary Service" covered under clause (iii) [an customer care service provided by a third party on behalf of another person] and/or under clause (vi) [any service provided by a third party on behalf of another person] of Section 65(19)....