2009 (1) TMI 168 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds order on Cenvat credit for repairs, maintenance, & cleaning services

CCE, NAGPUR Versus MANIKGARH CEMENT

The presiding Member upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the ... Cenvat Credit on Input Services - admissibility of the Cenvat credit on the input services i.e., repairs and maintenance, civil construction, manpower recruitment, cleaning services etc provided for the residential colony - definitions of 'input' and 'input service' in the Cenvat Credit Rules are not identical - hence the decisions with reference to 'input' are not applicable to 'input services' - held that cenvat credit allowed. Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services for repairs and maintenance, civil construction, manpower recruitment, and cleaning services provided for the residential colony.Analysis:1. The appeal filed by the Revenue pertains to the admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services like repairs, maintenance, civil construction, and cleaning services provided for a residential colony. The Service Tax amount involved is Rs. 2,72,688 for the period between October 2006 and March 2007.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee based on a Tribunal's Order dated 13.12.2007, which held that the impugned services are relatable to business, are considered as input services, and credit on them is admissible.3. The Tribunal, in a previous order dated 13.12.2007, held that the services in question are indeed input services and that credit thereon is admissible. This decision was based on the fact that the services are related to the business activities.4. The learned J.D.R. relied on a High Court judgment (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd, where it was held that certain services related to residential complexes do not entitle the assessee to avail Cenvat credit. However, it was noted that this judgment pertained to the concept of 'input' and not 'input service.'5. The presiding Member noted that the definitions of 'input' and 'input service' in the Cenvat Credit Rules are not identical. Therefore, the High Court judgment cited by the J.D.R. may not be directly applicable to the present case, which deals specifically with 'input services.'6. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal's earlier order on the same issue for the respondents themselves, the presiding Member upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as sustainable. This decision was made based on judicial discipline and consistency in applying legal principles.7. In conclusion, the presiding Member upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the law in the context of 'input services' rather than 'inputs' as per the Cenvat Credit Rules.(Pronounced in Court)