2015 (6) TMI 82 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - activities in relation to business - whether the respondent was entitled to credit on management, maintenance or repair services provided on windmills installed by the respondents - Held that - management, maintenance and repair of windmills installed by the respondents is input service as defined by clause l of Rule 2. Rule 3 and 4 provide that any input or capital goods received in the factory or any input service received by manufacture of final product would be susceptible to CENVAT credit. Rule does not say that input service received by a manufacturer must be received at the factory premises. - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 19 - High Court of Bombay and 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on "management, maintenance or repair services" provided on services to Windmills situated away from the factory premises?
2. Whether electricity generated at different locations could be considered as used for manufacturing the final product at a different location?

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the entitlement to CENVAT credit on services provided to Windmills away from the factory premises. The interpretation of Rule 2(B)(k),(l), 3, and 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is crucial in determining the eligibility for credit. The High Court referred to previous judgments to establish that the management, maintenance, and repair of windmills fall under the definition of "input service." The Court emphasized that the rule does not mandate that the input service must be received at the factory premises for credit eligibility. Citing relevant case laws, the Court highlighted the broad and inclusive nature of the definition of "input service," encompassing services directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Court dismissed the appellant's challenge and upheld the entitlement to CENVAT credit on the services provided to Windmills.

Issue 2:
Regarding the use of electricity generated at different locations for manufacturing the final product, the Court affirmed that the electricity generated at remote locations could be considered as used for the manufacturing process at a different location. The adjustment of electricity generated at one location with the electricity used at another location supported this conclusion. The Court's analysis focused on the connection between the generation and utilization of electricity at distinct sites, ultimately affirming the utilization of electricity generated at remote locations in the manufacturing process at a different site. The Court's decision on this issue was affirmative.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeals, affirming the entitlement to CENVAT credit on services provided to Windmills away from the factory premises and recognizing the use of electricity generated at different locations in the manufacturing process. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions and case laws to support its conclusions on both issues raised in the appeals.