2009 (10) TMI 962 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'input service' u/s Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Requirement of maintaining greenery on factory premises; Inclusion of expenses towards garden maintenance in cost of finished products.

Interpretation of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The appellant contended that the service in question falls under the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service'. However, the Tribunal found that the service did not meet the requirements of the substantive part of the definition, implying that services claiming inclusion must satisfy the legal requirements of the main part. The appellant's grievance on this issue was deemed unfounded.

Requirement of maintaining greenery on factory premises: The appellant argued that they were obligated to maintain greenery on 33% of the factory premises as per a consent granted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. This contention was considered irrelevant since the service in question did not meet the main part of the 'input service' definition.

Inclusion of garden maintenance expenses in cost of finished products: The appellant claimed that expenses for garden maintenance were part of the total cost of finished products on which Central Excise duty was discharged. However, this aspect was also deemed irrelevant based on the findings in the final order. The Tribunal did not delve into penalty-related issues as they were remanded to the original authority for consideration.

Conclusion: After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found no error, let alone an apparent error, in the final order. The application was dismissed as the grievances raised were considered irrelevant in light of the main part of the 'input service' definition and the findings in the final order.