2013 (8) TMI 309 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rejects appeal on Cenvat credit for services in staff colonies.

M/s Shree Cement Limited Versus CCE, Jaipur

The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit for services used in staff colonies ... Cenvat credit in respect of input services namely, errection, commissioning and installation, man-power recruitment and civil construction, used in the employees staff colony, canteen and residence of the Executive Director of the Company - These services were not used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products and as such, are not eligible to be classified as ‘input services’ as defined in 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules – Held that:- As per the decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. M/s. ITC Ltd. reported in [2011 (11) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , services which are crucial for maintaining staff colony such as lawn mowing, garbage cleaning, maintenance of swimming pool, collection of household garbage, harvest cutting, weeding etc. necessarily had to be considered as ‘input services’ falling within the ambit of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 - Disputed services in the present case are not mentioned in the services in the list of activities mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh decision - Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd [2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]., the activities related to business will cover only, in its ambit the activities which are mentioned in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which follow the words ‘such as’ – In the present case activities/ services are not covered in any of the services mentioned after the word ‘such as’ – Cenvat Credit not allowed – Decided against the Assessee. Issues:Eligibility of Cenvat credit for erection, commissioning, installation, man-power recruitment, and civil construction services used in staff colony and Executive Director's residence located outside the factory premises.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute over the eligibility of Cenvat credit for certain services used by a cement manufacturing company in the staff colony and the residence of the Executive Director, situated away from the factory premises. The Department contended that these services did not directly or indirectly contribute to the manufacturing process and thus were not classified as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The dispute centered around whether these services were essential for maintaining the staff colony and, therefore, qualified as 'input services' as per legal provisions.The appellant argued that the services utilized in the staff colony and Executive Director's residence were for the welfare of the employees, enhancing their efficiency and productivity, thereby benefiting the factory operations. They relied on a decision by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which recognized services crucial for maintaining a staff colony as falling within the definition of 'input services' under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant contended that the services in question were utilized for the welfare of the staff residing in the colony, justifying their entitlement to Cenvat credit for such input services.On the other hand, the Department reiterated that the services in question were utilized in locations distant from the factory premises, asserting that they were not directly related to the manufacturing process. They argued that the appellant's claim of these services being related to business activities, as defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, was unfounded. The Department cited a decision by the High Court of Gujarat, emphasizing that only activities explicitly mentioned after the phrase 'such as' in the Rule would be eligible under the category of business-related activities.Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined the disputed services in light of precedents set by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The Tribunal noted that the services in question, namely erection, commissioning, installation, and man-power recruitment, were not explicitly listed in the activities specified in the relevant legal provisions. Following the legal interpretation provided by the High Court of Gujarat, which emphasized activities explicitly mentioned after 'such as,' the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit for these services. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling against the eligibility of Cenvat credit for the disputed services.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the applicability of 'input services' in the context of services utilized in staff colonies and executive residences. The judgment highlighted the importance of explicit inclusion of activities in the legal provisions to determine eligibility for Cenvat credit, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal.