2018 (8) TMI 1569 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - Garden upkeep services - Interior Decorator service - Renting of immovable property services - Held that - The appellant is a manufacturer and as per pollution control norms, they are required to maintain certain percentage of green area in their factory premises - credit allowed - appeal allowed. Interior decorator services - Held that - It is brought out from evidence that the appellant had furnished invoices relating to the services - The appellant had done some minor civil work with respect to workstations used for overseeing manufacturing operations inside the factory - credit on these services allowed. Renting of immovable property services - Held that - A similar issue was analysed by the Tribunal in the case of Carrier Air conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. 2016 (4) TMI 103 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH . The Tribunal observed that the credit availed on the renting of branch offices was eligible - credit allowed. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat Credit on garden upkeep services, interior decorator services, and renting of immovable property services.

Analysis:
1. Garden upkeep services: The appellant, a manufacturer, was denied credit for garden upkeep services. The appellant argued that maintaining green areas was a statutory requirement under pollution control norms. Citing a High Court decision, it was held that the denial of credit was unjustified, and the credit was deemed eligible due to the manufacturing activity's nature.

2. Interior decorator services: The appellant claimed credit for interior decorator services used for modernization and repairs. The authorities contended that these services lacked a nexus with manufacturing activities. However, evidence showed minor civil work related to workstations overseeing manufacturing operations, making the credit eligible. The denial of credit was set aside.

3. Renting of immovable property services: The credit for renting branch offices was disallowed, arguing the lack of nexus with manufacturing activities. The appellant justified the branch offices' necessity for sales order collection, supply coordination, and market research. Referring to a Tribunal decision, it was concluded that the credit availed on renting branch offices was eligible. Consequently, the disallowance of credit was deemed improper and set aside.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were modified to allow credit for garden services, interior decorator services, and renting of immovable property services for branch offices. The demand confirmation on these services was set aside, and the appeals were allowed accordingly with any consequential reliefs.