Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Universal Chemicals And Industries ... vs Cce Thane I on 1 April, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/1095/12 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB(52)Th-I/2012 dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I.)
For approval and signature:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Universal Chemicals and Industries Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane I
Respondent
Appearance None for Appellants Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 01.04.2015 Date of Decision : 01.04.2015 ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB(52)Th-I/2012 dated 30.04.2012.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. On perusal of the records, I find that the issue lies in a narrow compass accordingly, I take up the appeal for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the appellant-assessee. With the help of learned A.R. I perused the records and heard his submissions.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on House Keeping and Garden Maintenance Service which were rendered at the factory of the appellant. Adjudicating authority has recorded that various decisions of the Tribunal are directly applicable and accordingly dropped the proceedings initiated by show-cause notice. Aggrieved by such an order, Revenue filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority reversed the order-in-original on the ground that there is no nexus with the services i.e. House Keeping and Gardening Services with the manufacturing and clearance of the excisable goods. In my considered view the impugned order is erroneous for more than one reason.
4. Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is manufacturer of chemicals. It is a common knowledge that permission is granted to a Chemical Factory by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, subject to fulfilling the condition of planting number of trees as also to bring under green belt and for this purpose if the appellant requires or procures the services of the service provider, pays service tax, CENVAT credit on such amount, cannot be denied.
4.1 Secondly, I find that in the case of Millipore India Ltd. vs. CCE - 2009 (13) STR 616 (Tri. Bang), this Tribunal took a view that CENVAT credit is eligible for landscaping of factory garden. This view has been upheld by the Honble High Court of Karnataka. This Bench in the case of SEMCO Electrical (P) Ltd. 2010 (18) STR 177 (Tri.) took identical view on garden maintenance service
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case and also authoritative judicial pronouncements, I find that the impugned order passed by first appellate authority is incorrect in holding that the appellant is not eligible to avail CENVAT credit on House Keeping and Garden Maintenance Service which are rendered in the factory. In my view these activities are related to manufacturing services.
7. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3