Appellant granted credit for windmill maintenance in manufacturing process, citing Rule 3A and precedents.

The appellant appealed the denial of input service credit for windmill maintenance away from the factory. The Tribunal allowed the credit, citing precedents and Rule 3A of the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing the windmill's role in electricity generation for manufacturing. Relying on the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting the CENVAT credit for the annual maintenance charges. This decision underscores the necessity of direct service usage in manufacturing for claiming input service credit and the significance of precedents in supporting such claims.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of input service credit for Annual Maintenance Repair on wind mill located away from the factory.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of input service credit for the maintenance of a wind mill situated away from the factory. The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, used electricity generated by windmills transmitted through the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). The revenue contended that since the electricity from the windmill was not directly used for manufacturing the final product, the input service credit was not admissible. Both lower authorities upheld the denial. The appellant argued citing precedents like Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. and Endurance Technologies Ltd., where CENVAT credit was allowed in similar circumstances. The revenue, however, relied on cases like Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. vs. CCE and others to oppose the credit claim.

Upon hearing both sides, the main issue was whether the appellant could avail CENVAT credit for the annual maintenance of a wind mill located outside the factory, with electricity generated and used indirectly in manufacturing. Rule 3A of the Central Excise Rules was referred to, stating that the assessee could claim credit for services used in manufacturing. The Tribunal noted precedents like Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. and Endurance Technologies Ltd., where similar credit claims were allowed. The Tribunal found no new evidence presented by the revenue to deny the credit claim and acknowledged that the windmill was installed by the appellant for electricity generation used in manufacturing operations. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the CENVAT credit on the annual maintenance charges for the wind mill. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of direct usage of services in manufacturing activities for claiming input service credit and emphasizes the relevance of precedents in similar cases to support credit claims. The decision provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for CENVAT credit in situations where services are indirectly utilized in manufacturing processes.

---