2022 (4) TMI 421 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - garden maintenance service for the garden being maintained within the factory premises - credit denied on gardening service per se but on the ground that the appellant have not established that the garden is maintained for the purpose of Pollution Control - HELD THAT - It is evident from the consent order of the Pollution Control Committee for renewing the pollution control license that the appellant is required to green up the surrounding of the factory inside and outside. For this reason only the appellant are maintaining the garden, therefore, the entire basis of the department to deny the cenvat credit does not stand. In various judgements this Tribunal has considered the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit in respect of garden service. The appellants is entitled for the cenvat credit in respect of maintenance of gardening service - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for garden maintenance service within factory premises.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for garden maintenance service within the factory premises. The appellant argues that garden maintenance is a mandatory requirement as per the Pollution Control Board, citing consent orders emphasizing the need to green up the surrounding areas to control pollution due to the manufacturing activities. The appellant manufactures goods falling under Chapter 32, which creates pollution, making garden maintenance essential for environmental conservation. The appellant relies on various judgments to support their claim, highlighting the importance of maintaining the garden for pollution control purposes.

The Revenue, represented by the Joint Commissioner, contends that the garden is maintained for beautification rather than pollution control, thus arguing against the admissibility of the credit. However, the appellate member finds that the lower authorities erred in denying the Cenvat Credit based on the premise that the garden was not maintained for pollution control. The member notes that the consent order from the Pollution Control Committee mandates greening the factory surroundings inside and outside, justifying the garden maintenance for pollution control purposes. The member cites previous tribunal judgments to support the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for garden maintenance services.

In the detailed analysis, the member refers to specific tribunal judgments such as the case of Lupin Ltd., where the definition of input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules is discussed extensively. The judgment emphasizes that services used in or in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product qualify as input services, including activities like photography, dry cleaning, construction, and brokerage. The member concludes that the appellant is rightfully entitled to Cenvat Credit for the tax paid on these services, aligning with the broad definition of input services and the necessity of maintaining factory premises for environmental and corporate social responsibility reasons.

Based on the above analysis and supported by relevant case laws, the appellate member rules in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat Credit for maintenance of gardening service within the factory premises. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed, emphasizing the importance of considering the broader context of maintaining factory premises for environmental compliance and corporate social responsibility.