9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had availed CENVAT Credit of service tax towards the following services : (i) Supply of Security Personnel deputed along with the goods to various customer sites; and (ii) Supply of Manpower for Gardening and Housekeeping. The appellants utilized the same for payment of Central Excise Duty on finished goods for the period April, 2015 to December, 2015. 1.3 A Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2016 was issued proposing to demand an amount of Rs. 11,17,982/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest and penalty on the ground that the above said services had no nexus with the manufacture of excisable goods. After due process of law, the lower adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has ruled as under : "5.4 As indicated above, this Court in similar circumstances held that Cenvat credit would be available to an Assessee with respect to house keeping and land scaping services. 5.5 This Court, followed the view of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (26) S.T.R. 514 (Kar.). The relevant observations of this Court in Rane TRW Steering Systems Limited case are extracted hereinafter : "7. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 514 (Kar.)], the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider similar issue and in the facts of the said case, while conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed." 8. A cursory reading of the said judgment reveals that the facts in issue therein are similar to the facts in the present case. It is clear from the decision that where an employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco-friendly manner, the tax paid on such services would form part of the cost of the final products and the same would fall within the ambit of ‚input services‛ and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit. This Court is in agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Personnel deputed along with goods to the customer's sites; that the same was very much essential since the value of the equipment/goods was very high and the supply depended on timely delivery. When the Manpower is used for Gardening and Housekeeping, Security Personnel/Watchmen engaged in overall security of their business premises could be held to be eligible, the same logic should equally apply to the same personnel being engaged for the services related to the appellant's business and in assisting safe delivery. In view of the foregoing I am of the view that the impugned Order is unsustainable for which reason the same is set aside. 8. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (Operative part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
