Manufacturers win appeal for House Keeping Services cenvat credit

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the manufacturers of aluminium casting for motor vehicle parts, holding that House Keeping Services are essential for production, ensuring a conducive working environment and meeting statutory obligations. The Tribunal found such services admissible for cenvat credit, setting aside the Commissioner of Central Excise's order that denied the credit.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of cenvat credit on House Keeping Services in relation to the manufacture of final product.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit on House Keeping Services availed by the appellants, who are manufacturers of aluminium casting for motor vehicle parts. The Revenue contended that the credit was not admissible as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that the services were neither input services nor used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of the final product. A show cause notice was issued, demanding the amount availed as credit along with interest and penalty. The appellants, aggrieved by the decision, approached the Tribunal.

The appellants argued that maintaining cleanliness in the factory, including House Keeping Services, is a statutory obligation under the Factories Act, 1948, essential for ensuring healthy surroundings and proper working conditions for employees, thereby impacting production. The advocate cited various case laws where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of such services for manufacturing operations and compliance with statutory requirements.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of House Keeping Services for maintaining cleanliness in the factory, ensuring a conducive working environment, and meeting statutory obligations. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that such services are essential for production and are admissible for cenvat credit. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed.

---