9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same". 4. On the other hand, the learned DR appearing for the revenue relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. A/157/2009/SMB/C-IV, dated 6-4-2009] wherein it was held that :— "garden maintenance service has no nexus, even remotely, to manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. The above services was not used, directly or indirectly, in relation to the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods." Therefore, the credit was denied. The learned DR further relied on the decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) and submitted that 'input' and 'input service' are identical and in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has held that the input would become eligible for credit only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On going through the submissions made by both the sides, I found that the main issue is relating to disallowance of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on garden maintenance service on the ground that these services are not used in or in relation to the manufacture, whether direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above definition on satisfying any one of the limbs of the above categories Cenvat credit is available and they are all independent as considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. But the Ld. DR emphasized to the illustrations put by the Hon'ble High Court which is reproduced below :— " . . . To illustrate, input services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory will be allowed as credit, even if they are assumed as not an activity relating to business as long as they are associated directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final products and transportation of final products up to the place of removal . . . ." 9. But according to the Hon'ble High Court, credit can be denied only when assessee fails to become eligible in any one of the categories. I find that in category V, service used in relation to activities relating to business is covered and therefore what I have to examine is whether the appellants are covered under this category or not? 10. Moreover, in the case of Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has discussed the issue in detail and with reference to the expression used in the input service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to business'. The expression 'in relation to' (so also 'pertaining to') is very broad expression which presupposes another subject-matter. Similarly, the use of the word 'activities' in the phrase 'activities relating to business' further signifies the wide import of the phrase 'activities relating to business'. The Rule making authority has not employed any qualifying words before the word 'activities', like 'main' activities or 'essential' activities etc. Therefore, it must follow that all and any activity relating to business falls within the definition of "input service" provided there is relation between the manufacturer of concentrate and the activity. (6) 'Services' - The word 'services' is given such a wide meaning for the purposes of value added tax that it is capable of embracing everything which a taxable person does in the course or furtherance of business carried on by him which is done for consideration. Finally, the Hon'ble High Court has held that— (i) Service tax like Cenvat is basically a value added tax which is operated through credit mechanism. Service Tax is VAT. Just as excise duty is a tax on value addition on goods, service tax is on value addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve part is "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product." The Apex Court in this has observed that— "It is the functional utility of the said item which would constitute the relevant consideration. Unless and until the said input is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product within the factory of production, the said item would not become an eligible input. The said expression "used in or in relation to the manufacture" have many shades and would cover various situations based on the purpose for which the input is used." 12. The contention of the Ld. DR is that input and input service are identical and in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the input should be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product in the substantive/specific part of the definition. In each case it has to be established that inputs mentioned in the inclusive part is "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product". The main emphasis of the Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd.'s case (supra) is on input only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. 13. I have gone through the definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reference of Ld. DR in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) is no help to him. 19. The Ld. DR further relied on Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.'s case (supra) and Vikram Ispat wherein the Tribunal has held that "the above service was not used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture or clearance of final product". I concur with the lower authorities on this point. In the above cases also the issue was of admissibility of Cenvat credit of garden maintenance service. 20. But in both the cases, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) had not been considered, as not available. As already observed earlier, it is not for me to judge whether a garden is essential or used in or in relation to manufacture but to examine whether this service can be considered as an activity relating to business. I cannot or would not like to take a view that a garden is not relating to manufacture. A good garden creates a better atmosphere and environment which increases the working efficiency and the consumer would feel good. 21. I have also gone through the decision of this Tribunal in Force Motors Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 23 STT 160 (Mum. - CESTAT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
