Archana Wadhwa, J. - (1.)ALL the appeals filed by the Revenue and by the appellant are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, for the sake of brevity, the facts as available in the assessee's appeal are being adverted to. The appellant is a 100 percent. EOU engaged in the manufacture of sound signaling equipment. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Cenvat credit availed of by the appellant in respect of various services.
(2.)IT is seen that originally a show -cause notice was issued for disallowing the Cenvat credit on various input services like CHA service, courier service, catering service, medical claim insurance, rent a cab and general insurance and business support service and denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,66,562 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 35,000. On appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit in respect of various services but denied the same in respect of business support service to the extent of Rs. 10,59,538. The said denial is challenged by the appellant, whereas allowing of the Cenvat credit stand challenged by the Revenue.
The appellant was availing of the business support service (support service for business and commerce) such as security, cleaning and house keeping, canteen, reception, maintenance of common areas, i.e., roads, parking, security gate and running and maintenance of common facilities like ETP, STP, EPBX, WTP, DG sets, air compressors, chilling plant. For the said purposes, they have entered into an agreement with M/s. Minda Acoustics Ltd. on May 1, 2006 for the purpose of providing the above business support services. The Revenue has denied the credit on the ground that they cannot be held to be admissible Cenvatable input services.

(3.)WE find that the law is no more res integra. It stand held by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in : [2011] 6 GSTR 103 (Bom) : [2010] 36 VST 505 (Bom) : [2010] 20 STR 577 (Bom), that the criteria for coverage of input services is that the same is integrally connected with the business of manufacture of final product and the scope of the definition being very wide, the same would cover services not only used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, but also various services used in relation to business of manufacture, whether prior to manufacture or after manufacture. The definition of input service seeks to cover every conceivable service used in the business of manufacture. Similarly, in the case of Coca Cola India P. Ltd. v. CCE reported in : [2009] 25 VST 473 (Bom) : [2009] 15 STR 657 (Bom), it stands held that the term business appearing in the definition of input service cannot be given a restricted definition inasmuch as the said term is of wide import and covers all the activities related to functioning of a business.