2016 (6) TMI 411 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of service tax paid for maintenance of garden in the premises of the appellant to Agri-Horticultural Consultants - Held that - Denial of Cenvat credit in respect of the impugned service and imposing penalties on the appellants are set aside as this service was utilized in relation to the manufacture of the final product. See India Glycols Ltd 2014 (1) TMI 1549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein held that since this is the statutory requirement and without fulfilling the same, the appellant unit would not be allowed to carry out manufacturing activity, the services of manpower supply used for the maintenance of the green belt have nexus with the manufacture of the final product - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for maintenance of garden in the premises of the appellant.
- Reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004.
- Penalty under 15(1) of CCR for wrong availment of Cenvat credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat credit on garden maintenance services
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, availed Cenvat credit on service tax paid for garden maintenance. The department issued show cause notices proposing demand for reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty for wrong availment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. The appellant argued that maintenance of garden services is a mandatory requirement under the Factories Act and cited precedents where the Tribunal allowed credit for similar services related to manufacturing activity. The Revenue contended that garden maintenance is not integrally connected with manufacturing activity as per Rule 2(l) of CCR. The Tribunal found that maintaining a green belt is a statutory requirement for manufacturing activity, as supported by relevant case law and environmental regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders denying Cenvat credit and penalties.

Issue 2: Reversal of Cenvat credit and interest
The department proposed the reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004. The appellants contested this based on the statutory requirement of maintaining a green belt for manufacturing activity, citing relevant case law and environmental regulations. The Tribunal, considering the statutory obligations and environmental mandates, allowed the appeals, overturning the orders for reversal of Cenvat credit and interest.

Issue 3: Penalty under 15(1) of CCR for wrong availment of Cenvat credit
The department proposed penalties under 15(1) of CCR for the alleged wrong availment of Cenvat credit on garden maintenance services. The appellants argued in favor of their eligibility for credit based on statutory requirements and precedents. The Tribunal, after reviewing the arguments and relevant regulations mandating green belt maintenance, set aside the penalties imposed by the authorities below, thereby allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the statutory nature of maintaining green belts for manufacturing activities and the nexus between garden maintenance services and the final product's manufacture. The decision overturned the denials of Cenvat credit, interest reversals, and penalties, in line with environmental regulations and established case law principles.