JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the final order No.21966/2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. 2. The facts in brief are that during the course of audit by the Departmental Audit Party, it was noticed that the respondent had availed input service tax credit during the period July 2005 to March 2007 on i) repair charges; ii) repair of company vehicles; iii) rent a cab services used for transportation of staff/guests; iv) credit taken on invoices which did not bear Sl. No. and registration certificate etc.; pursuant to which, a show cause notice dated 23.08.2007 was issued to the respondent demanding recovery of credit availed on the said services as irregular. After consideration of the objections filed by the respondent, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit taken on repair of company vehicles and rent a cab services thereby demanding Rs.13,19,362/ for availing the input service tax wrongly and imposed equal penalty along with interest. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise, who allowed the appeal setting aside the order in original. Being aggrieved by the said order in appeal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘CESTAT’), which was dismissed, against which, the instant appeal is preferred by the Revenue. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal, following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The said judgment is not challenged by the Revenue in view of the policy decision of the Central Government under the circular instructions on account of monetary limit, the Board vide Instruction F.No.390/Misc/ 163/2010JC dated 12.12.2013 has communicated that the decisions/Judgments accepted for reason of monetary limit do not have precedent value. Accordingly, he contends that the said judgment of this Court relied on by the Tribunal has no precedent value. It is also contended that the issue involved in this case not having reached finality, it has to be reconsidered by this Court in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra) not being further challenged by the appellant before the Apex Court. 4. It is also contended that the issue involved in this case not having reached finality, it has to be reconsidered by this Court in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra) not being further challenged by the appellant before the Apex Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal was preferred by the appellant before the CESTAT challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority whereby CENVAT Credit has been allowed in respect of service tax paid for services of repair, maintenance of company vehicles and tax paid on rentacab services. The issue regarding rentacab services is raised and considered in extenso by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein this Court has clearly held that the rentacab services provided by the assessee to the workers to reach the factory premises well in time, would have a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. This is considered to be a basic necessity to ensure that the work force comes in time at the work place and the manufacturing activity proceeds smoothly and effectively. It has also held that Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically provides that the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit, the service tax liable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, one which is paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of a final product. 6. It is thus clear that under the Scheme of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is entitled to claim the credit on the service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in relation to a final product involved in the manufacturing activity. On the issue of allowing benefit in respect of repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, Tribunal has followed Tata Steel Ltd., case 2011(21) STR 444 (TriMum), which is justifiable. We are of the opinion that the service tax paid for services of repair, maintenance of company vehicles/rentacab services are in relation to the business activities of the company, which is directly or indirectly involved in the manufacturing activity of the final product, is an input service. We are of the opinion that the service tax paid for services of repair, maintenance of company vehicles/rentacab services are in relation to the business activities of the company, which is directly or indirectly involved in the manufacturing activity of the final product, is an input service. As such, the CENVAT credit claimed on these two services namely, service tax paid for repair on Company vehicles and, rentacab services would come within the realm of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus, the assesseee is entitled for the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input services. The judgment of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue following the said judgment. 7. However, we are surprised to notice the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the policy decision taken by the Central Government that for the reasons of monetary value the judgment of M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra) is not challenged thus, the said judgment has no value as a precedent in the subsequent cases. This argument is totally misconceived. The decision of the Central Government to challenge a judgment or not is within its wisdom and reason. Such decision is not binding on the Courts. On the other hand, the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court has binding value and this Court is bound by the said judgment, unless it is disagreed and referred to a larger Bench. 8. We do not find any reason to deviate from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra). 9. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal as no substantial questions of law arises for our consideration. The appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits.