TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration India Limited) against Order-in-Appeal No. 58-62/2010 dated 11.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 which was rejected on the ground that the conditions of the Notifications were not satisfied and also certain refund claims were rejected on the ground that the input services do not qualify as input services vis-à-vis the output services i.e., said to have been used in the export of taxable service. Accordingly, the rebate and refund claims were rejected. The appellant vide Miscellaneous Application No.20777/2024 amended the prayer to set aside the impugned order pertaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntative reiterated the findings of the original authority and requested to deny the refund on the ground that appellants are ineligible to avail credit on various input services and other reasons such as the invoices are not related to the specified period and are not related to the services that are exported. Referring to the definition of input services as it existed prior to 01.04.2008 and referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) submitted that the intension of the legislature is that inputs falling in the inclusive part must have nexus with the manufacture of the final products, hence. the input services which do not have any nexus with the output services will not be eligible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Services 7. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) dated 25.10.2010 observed as follows: "33. It is argued on behalf of the Revenue that not only the ratio but the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) must be applied ipso facto to hold that the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services is allowable only if the said services are used in relation to the manufacture of final products. That argument cannot be accepted because unlike the definition of input, which is restricted to the inputs used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, the definition of "input service' n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... named therein, is also devoid of any merit, because, the substantive part of the definition of 'input service' as well as the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' purport to cover not only services used prior to the manufacture of final products, subsequent to the manufacture of final products but also services relating to the business such as accounting, auditing. etc. Thus the definition of input service seeks to cover every conceivable service used in the business of manufacturing the final products. Moreover, the categories of services enumerated after the expression 'such as' in the definition of 'input service' do not relate to any particular class or category of services, but refer to variety of services used in the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of input service. Even then, the C.B.E.C. has construed the definition of input service widely so as to cover not only the services specifically enumerated in the definition of 'input service' but also cover all services which are used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final products. Therefore, the argument of the revenue which runs counter to stand taken by the C.B.E.C. cannot be accepted. 37. In the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has considered scope of the expression "input service" as defined in Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. In that case, the question for consideration was, whether a manufacturer of non- alcoholic beverage bases (concentrates) is eligible to avail credit of serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o "Information Technology Service", therefore, they are not excluded from the scope of "Business Auxiliary Service" which is taxable. Once it is held that they are taxable and the credit taken on the input services has not been utilized for payment in respect of Output services, they are entitled for the refund of the credit in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Moreover the department's objection with regard to the 'Input Services', entitlement of credit is also not correct because on going through the definition of input service and also the services availed by the Respondent, we find that they are very necessary for providing output services and they satisfy the condition of the input services as given in the Cenvat Credit Rules. In our v....