1. This appeal was admitted on 07.04.2016. The Court, at that time, framed two questions of law for adjudication.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the first question of law, will suffice. The said question of law, being :
(i) Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit on 'rent a cab services/air travel agent's service/tour operator service' provided to the staff/employees of the factory as an input service credit despite the fact that the said service does not fall under the ambit of the definition of 'input service' specified under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and in as much as the said services are neither used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of final product nor can it be said to be an activity relating to business ?
3. Ms.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the Revenue, says that the question of law, as extracted above, stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, U.P. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, 2010 (260) E.L.T. 321 (SC).
4. As a matter of fact, this view has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.12.2016, passed in C.M.A.No.2586 of 2016, titled : Commissioner of Central Excise III V. M/s.Visteon Automotive Systems India (P) Limited.
5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The impugned judgment is sustained. The question of law, as framed, is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
6. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.