Input Services for Manufacturing Wind Mills Eligible for Cenvat Credit

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, holding that cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in a wind mill away from the factory premises was permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that services indirectly used in the manufacturing process, even if located outside the factory, could qualify as input services under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision distinguished between inputs and input services, highlighting that the location of service utilization does not necessarily bar credit eligibility, especially when the services contribute to the manufacturing of excisable goods subject to central excise duty.

---

---

Issues:
- Availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in a wind mill located away from the factory premises.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur, regarding the denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in a wind mill at a different location from the manufacturing factory. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker, claimed the credit based on the argument that the services were received and used indirectly in the manufacturing process. The appellant's advocate cited various judgments to support the broad interpretation of input services and compliance with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the other hand, the respondent relied on the location of the wind mill outside the factory premises to deny the credit, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki case and a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal noted that the electricity generated by the wind mill was indeed used in the factory for manufacturing excisable goods, which were subject to central excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 do not specify exclusive use within the factory for services to qualify as input services. Citing precedents where similar credits were allowed, the Tribunal distinguished the Maruti Suzuki case, which dealt with inputs, from the present case involving input services received by the manufacturer of the final product. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis clarifies the interpretation of input services, the relevance of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the significance of service usage in manufacturing processes, and the distinction between input and input services in the context of cenvat credit availment.

---