(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 04/2008 -CE dt. 22/1/2008.
(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is a manufacturer of rubber seals, case bottom, bush blanks and polymers. The appellant is availing credit of service tax paid on 'manpower supply service'. The said manpower supply services are towards canopy, house keeping, sundry and civil maintenance of gardens. The credit of the service tax availed by the appellant was disputed by the Revenue on the ground that the service tax paid on the maintenance of gardens does not come under the purview of input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product in terms of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Coming to such conclusion, a show cause notice was issued of denying and for reversal of the said cenvat credit availed. The adjudicating authority vide his order dt. 11/7/2007 confirmed the demand and also imposed penalties besides demanding the interest. Aggrieved by such order appellants preferred an appeal to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submission made before him came to the conclusion that the Order -in -Original is correct and does not require any interference. Hence this appeal.
(3.) LD . DR on the other hand would submit that the services rendered for maintenance of garden would not come under the definition of services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2009 (241) ELT 474 (Tri. Mum.) for the proposition that the service tax paid on the garden maintenance service is not related to the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. It is his submission that the ratio of the said decision was also followed in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2009 TIOL 1908 CESTAT -MUM, GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2009 TIOL 1040 CESTAT -MUM.