Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs International Combustion (I) Ltd on 5 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/2153/10
- Mum
(Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. SR/318/NGP/2010 dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble 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 Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Appellant
Vs.
International Combustion (I) Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Maji, AC(AR) for the appellant Shri Gautam Datta, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 05-05-2016 Date of decision : 05-05-2016 O R D E R No: ..
This appeal is filed by the revenue against the impugned order.
2. The First Appellate Authority by the impugned order has set aside the Order-in-Original that confirmed the demands raised for the disallowance of the Cenvat Credit in respect of the service tax paid by the service provider in relation to the cleaning services, garden maintenance service, civil and construction work, painting work, fencing work etc.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records, I find that the First Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Millipore India Ltd., Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. and Kirloskar Engines Ltd. to hold that these services which are rendered by the service provider to the appellant are within the factory premises and are in relation to the manufacturing activity. The revenues contention in the appeal is that these services are not used in relation to the manufacturing of final product.
5. Ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that there has to be a nexus between the manufacturing activity and the service which were received by the assessee.
6. On careful consideration, I find that the judgment of the Tribunal in Millipore India Ltd., Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. are upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein it has held the service tax paid on the services rendered for landscaping factory garden, catering bill, canteen etc. have to be considered as service rendered in relation to the manufacturing activity. Identical view is expressed by the Tribunal Larger Bench in GTC Industries.
7. Be that as it may, I find the issue regarding the availability of Cenvat Credit by interpreting the word and includes was referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. The Larger bench by judgment dated 19.02.2016 reported in 2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB upheld the views expressed by the apex court in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and held that the word include is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction.
8. Applying this ratio, I find that the First Appellate Authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the respondent is eligible for availment of Cenvat Credit on the services rendered by various service providers which were within the factory premises.
9. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR 4 E/2153/10