Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on housekeeping services
- Denial of credit for service tax paid under specific categories
- Imposition of equal penalty for credit denied
- Interpretation of statutory requirements under the Factories Act, 1948

Analysis:

The case involved three appeals arising from a common Order-in-Appeal, where the appellant, a manufacturer of Lubricating Oil Additives, availed Cenvat credit for excise duty paid on inputs and services. The department issued show cause notices proposing to deny credit for input services from December 2010 to June 2011. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, leading to appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit pre-01.04.2011 but disallowed it post this date for specific services like housekeeping, rent-a-cab, and outdoor catering.

The appellant contested the denial of credit post-01.04.2011, specifically for housekeeping services. The appellant's counsel argued that maintaining cleanliness in the production area was essential for quality control in manufacturing lubricating oil additives. They cited a tribunal case to support their contention. The Revenue, represented by the AR, supported the Commissioner's decision to deny credit for housekeeping services, emphasizing its relevance to final product manufacturing.

The Judicial Member analyzed the case records focusing on the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for housekeeping services. It was established that housekeeping services were crucial for maintaining a clean and safe workplace, complying with statutory requirements under the Factories Act, 1948. The judgment highlighted the importance of housekeeping in preventing injuries, improving productivity, and ensuring compliance with safety regulations. The decision favored the appellant concerning housekeeping services, rejecting the other appeals not contested by the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal related to housekeeping services while rejecting the appeals not contested by the appellant. The decision emphasized the significance of maintaining cleanliness in the factory premises for efficient manufacturing operations and employee safety. The judgment was pronounced on 05-05-16, disposing of all three appeals accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates