2015 (3) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - failure to co-relate the pest control services with the manufacturing of final product - commission has been paid under Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - Any service availed by a manufacturer of excisable goods, in the course of their business, is entitled for input service credit. Admittedly, in this case the commission has been paid by the appellant for procuring the inputs and the pest control has been done in their factory for cleanliness of the factory. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant has availed these services in the course of their business of manufacturing of excisable goods. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for inputs service credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of input service credit on Pest Control Service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Lack of relation of Pest Control service to the manufacturing activity of the appellants.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant contested the denial of input service credit on Pest Control Service based on the lower authorities' decision that the service did not qualify as an input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment referred to the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. where it was established that any service availed by a manufacturer of excisable goods in the course of their business is eligible for input service credit. It was noted that the commission was paid by the appellant for procuring inputs, and the pest control was conducted in their factory for cleanliness. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellant had availed these services in the course of their business of manufacturing excisable goods, thus entitling them to input service credit. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

Issue 2: The second issue revolved around the lack of correlation between the pest control services and the manufacturing of the final product by the appellant. The tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing a connection between the services availed and the manufacturing process. It was crucial to demonstrate how the inputs procured under invoices, for which commission had been paid under Business Auxiliary Service, contributed to the manufacturing of the final product. Despite the initial failure to co-relate the pest control services with the manufacturing activity, the tribunal ultimately considered the broader context of the business operations and the necessity of the services for maintaining a suitable working environment for manufacturing activities. Consequently, the tribunal found that the appellant had indeed availed the pest control services in the course of their business of manufacturing excisable goods, thereby justifying the entitlement to input service credit.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of interpreting the eligibility of input service credit in the context of a manufacturer's business operations and the necessity of services for maintaining a conducive environment for manufacturing activities. The decision in favor of the appellant was based on the understanding that services directly related to the manufacturing process, even if seemingly indirect, could qualify for input service credit under the relevant rules and precedents.