Appeal allowed: Cenvat credit granted for architect services, distinct from construction.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the judge found no merit in the impugned order denying cenvat credit on service tax paid for repair and maintenance services of air-conditioners and water coolers, as well as architect services. The judge distinguished architect services from construction services under the Finance Act, allowing cenvat credit for architect services. The judgment emphasized the distinct nature of architect services compared to construction services, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid on repair and maintenance contract (AMC of air-conditioner and water cooler) and architect service.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid for the repair and maintenance contract of air-conditioners and water coolers, as well as architect services. The appellant argued that the maintenance and repair services were directly related to the office building within the factory, which had a connection to the manufacturing process of the final product. The appellant cited previous tribunal decisions to support their stance. Regarding architect services, the appellant contended that these services were distinct from construction services as per the definitions under the Finance Act. The appellant relied on a tribunal decision to reinforce their argument.

The respondent, represented by the ld. D.R., reiterated the findings in the impugned order without introducing new arguments. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the judge noted that the services under dispute, including maintenance of air-conditioners and water coolers, were for buildings within the factory premises where manufacturing activities took place.

The judge referred to previous tribunal decisions to support the allowance of cenvat credit for repair and maintenance services. Concerning architect services, the judge highlighted that the denial of cenvat credit was based on considering these services as related to construction, which was excluded from the definition of input service. However, upon reviewing the statutory definitions, the judge distinguished between construction services and architect services under different sections of the Act. Consequently, the judge concluded that architect services could not be equated with construction services for the purpose of denying cenvat benefits. Citing a specific tribunal case, the judge upheld the allowance of cenvat credit for architect services.

In conclusion, the judge found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant after a detailed analysis and clarification on the distinct nature of architect services compared to construction services. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court.

---