2016 (8) TMI 1258 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants Cenvat credit for construction services, denies for security services

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, permitting Cenvat credit for construction services related to the appellant's business activities but denying it ... Input service - Cenvat credit - construction service as input service - nexus with manufacturing activity - welfare activities exclusionConstruction service as input service - nexus with manufacturing activity - input service - Cenvat credit available on construction services (RCC wall, tube-well installation, approach road) used in mining operations - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that construction of RCC wall in underground mines, installation of tube-wells within the mining area for washing ore, and construction of approach road for movement of ore are related to the appellant's business activity. Those services facilitate and are integrally connected with the process of extracting, cleaning and transporting ores to the factory and therefore fall within the definition of input service for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit. The Tribunal accordingly allowed Cenvat benefit on these construction services. [Paras 5]Cenvat credit on the construction services is allowed.Input service - welfare activities exclusion - Cenvat credit - Cenvat credit on security service deployed at the residence of senior executives - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted the adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant did not produce documentary evidence showing deployment of security guards in the factory or plant area. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal held that the service was utilized for guarding residences of senior executives and is in the nature of welfare activity. Applying the principle in the cited authority, the Tribunal held that Cenvat credit is not available on such welfare-related security services. [Paras 5]Cenvat credit on the security service is denied and the appeal in respect of that service is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: Cenvat credit granted for the specified construction services; claim for Cenvat credit on security service at executives' residences is rejected. Issues:- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for civil construction service and security service.- Whether the construction services and security services availed by the appellant qualify as input services for Cenvat credit.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of lead/zinc/Bulk Concentrate, Sulphuric Acid, availed Cenvat credit of Service tax on civil construction service and security service. The Cenvat credit was disallowed as the services were deemed not to conform to the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.The appellant's advocate argued that the construction services, including the construction of RCC wall in underground mines, installation of tube wells, and construction of approach road, were directly related to the business activities. The RCC wall was constructed to protect mined ores, tube wells were used to wash ore, and the approach road was essential for ore transportation. Thus, it was contended that these services qualified as input services for Cenvat credit. On the other hand, the Revenue representative argued that the construction services lacked nexus with the manufacturing activity and therefore could not be considered as input services for Cenvat credit.Regarding the security service, it was highlighted that the security guards were deployed in various places, including the residence-cum-office of senior executives. The Revenue representative contended that providing security for the Chief Executive's residence was a welfare activity, not eligible for Cenvat credit. This argument was supported by a judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the construction services were indeed related to the appellant's business activities and thus qualified as input services for Cenvat credit. However, regarding the security service, since the appellant failed to provide evidence that the security guards were deployed in the factory area, the Cenvat credit was denied based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed for the construction service but dismissed for the security service. The decision was made in line with the above analysis and legal considerations.