2013 (11) TMI 608 - AT - Service Tax

Service Eligible as Input Service - Whether the services availed by the appellants for maintenance of the garden in and around the factory are admissible as input services or not as per the definition of Input Services contained in Rule-2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 Held that - Appellant is required to maintain a green belt all around their plants - thus the services utilized for maintaining of the green belt around their plant is a obligatory requirement - Cenvat credit on the gardening services required to maintain such a green belt is admissible Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of services for maintenance of garden as input services under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the question of whether the services availed for maintaining the garden in and around the factory could be considered as admissible input services under Rule-2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Appellant had filed a stay application and an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara.

The Appellant's representative argued that as per a letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, the maintenance of a green belt around the plant was a mandatory requirement for the Appellant. It was contended that the gardening services required for this purpose should be considered admissible for Cenvat credit. Reference was made to a previous decision in the case of CCE, Surat-II Vs. GSFC to support this argument.

On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative reiterated the reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this matter.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the issue at hand was no longer res-integra. The Tribunal noted that as per the letter from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Appellant was obligated to maintain a green belt around their plants. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal found that in Appeal No. E/503/2011, the Cenvat Credit on similar services had been allowed. Therefore, following the precedent set by the previous judgment, the Tribunal held that the Cenvat Credit on the services in question was admissible for the Appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, comprising Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ., pronounced the decision in favor of the Appellant, highlighting the obligation of the Appellant to maintain a green belt around their plants as a crucial factor in determining the admissibility of the services for Cenvat Credit.