2015 (9) TMI 822 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit of Mobile Phone Services, Garden Maintenance Services and for fencing of the Factory Premises - held that - It is observed from the Case Laws relied upon the appellant 2011 (9) TMI 509 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , and 2008 (9) TMI 190 - CESTAT, BANGALORE that these services have been held to be entitled to Cenvat Credit. Some of these relied upon Case Laws are pertaining to the same appellant on Mobile Phone Services and Garden Maintenance Services. In the subsequent periods even first appellant s authority and Adjudicating Authority have themselves allowed credit on the same issues - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services
2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Garden Maintenance Services
3. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Fencing Services

Analysis:

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services:
The appellant argued that Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services is supported by case laws such as Muscat Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. Conzerv Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. Furthermore, the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority in their own cases have allowed Cenvat Credit on similar services. The Tribunal observed that the services in question have been held to be entitled to Cenvat Credit based on the cited case laws and subsequent decisions. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant regarding Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services was allowed.

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Garden Maintenance Services:
Regarding Garden Maintenance Services, the appellant contended that the issue is covered by a CESTAT order in their own case, providing support for the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal considered this argument and found merit in the appellant's position. Consequently, the appeal on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Garden Maintenance Services was allowed.

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Fencing Services:
The appellant relied on the case law of Nirma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custom Excise and Service Tax Vadodara-I to support their claim for Cenvat Credit on Services utilized for Fencing. The appellant explained that the Fencing was done for additional land for warehouse construction, which was adjacent to the factory premises and included in their registered premises as per official communication. After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Fencing Services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal examined the issues related to the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Mobile Phone Services, Garden Maintenance Services, and Fencing Services. Based on the arguments, case laws, and subsequent decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, granting them consequential relief.