High Court allows cenvat credit for housekeeping & landscaping services

The High Court upheld the Assessee's appeal, allowing cenvat credit for housekeeping and landscaping services in addition to courier services. The Court referenced previous judgments supporting the inclusion of such services as input services, dismissing the Revenue's arguments. The Tribunal's decision denying credit for housekeeping and landscaping was overturned, with the High Court ruling in favor of the Assessee and setting aside the Tribunal's order without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to final order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding cenvat credit on housekeeping, landscaping, and courier services.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed challenging the final order passed by the Tribunal regarding the availability of cenvat credit on housekeeping, landscaping, and courier services. The Tribunal allowed cenvat credit for courier services but denied it for housekeeping and landscaping services. The Assessee appealed to the High Court.

2. The questions framed for consideration included whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting cenvat credit on housekeeping and landscaping services and whether the Tribunal erred in not considering previous judgments. The Advocate for the Revenue argued that the issues were already decided against the Revenue in a previous Division Bench judgment.

3. The Assessee, engaged in manufacturing computers, claimed cenvat credit for service tax paid on manpower for housekeeping, gardening, and courier services. While the Tribunal granted relief for courier services, it denied relief for housekeeping and gardening services, leading the matter to the High Court.

4. The High Court referred to previous judgments, including one by the Karnataka High Court, which held that activities related to business and services rendered in connection therewith, such as landscaping, fall within the ambit of input services. The Court agreed with the previous decisions and dismissed the appeal in favor of the Assessee.

5. The Advocate for the Revenue did not dispute that the Assessee availed housekeeping and landscaping services in its factory premises. The Court applied the ratio of previous judgments, including the one by the Karnataka High Court, and ruled in favor of the Assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's order and allowing the appeals without costs.

---