2018 (3) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - maintenance of garden at the training centre/guest house - renovation of residential accommodation of executives at Kurgaon - Held that - demand pertains to 2008-09 to 2010-11 during which period the definition of input service in rule 2(l) of the Central Excise Rules 2004 encompassed all activities relating to business qualified by a representative sample of typical services that could be treated as eligible service. That undoubtedly does cover maintenance activities at the training centre/guest-house and of the residential accommodation of the executives of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on service for maintenance of garden at the training centre/guest house and on renovation of residential accommodation of executives.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Tata Steel Company Ltd, appealed against the order-in-appeal denying CENVAT credit of ?3,67,326/- on services for maintenance of garden and renovation of residential accommodation. The appellant contended that the tax paid on garden maintenance service is eligible for CENVAT credit, citing precedents like L'Oreal India Pvt Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd. The original authority relied on the decision in Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd, emphasizing the nexus with manufacture as crucial for CENVAT credit eligibility.

The appellant argued that services procured for the training centre/guest house and executive bungalows, as extensions of the manufacturing factory, should be considered eligible. Reference was made to the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Manikgarh Cement to support the interpretation of the expression 'relating to business' in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The contention was that the term encompasses activities integral to the business, not just welfare activities undertaken by the assessee.

During the period in question (2008-09 to 2010-11), the definition of 'input service' under the Central Excise Rules, 2004 covered all activities relating to business. The Tribunal noted that this definition included maintenance activities at the training centre/guest house and residential accommodation of executives. Given the legal provisions applicable at that time, the Tribunal found that relying on the Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd decision, which concerned advertising and marketing services, was not justified for denying CENVAT credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.