CENVAT credit for input service distributors allowed where prior registration was not essential and statutory gardening services qualified.

Prior registration was not treated as an essential precondition for availing CENVAT credit as an input service distributor, so the objection based solely on lack of registration failed. Credit on rent-a-cab and gardening services was also found admissible on the facts, because gardening service was required to satisfy pollution-control obligations and the exclusionary clause in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was read narrowly. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned disallowance was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration was a prerequisite for availing CENVAT credit as an input service distributor; (ii) whether CENVAT credit on rent-a-cab service and gardening service was admissible in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether registration was a prerequisite for availing CENVAT credit as an input service distributor.

Analysis: The objection based on absence of registration was examined against the settled position of law on availment of credit as an input service distributor. The requirement of prior registration was held not to be an essential condition for such availment.

Conclusion: The objection failed and the disallowance on this ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit on rent-a-cab service and gardening service was admissible in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Gardening service was found to be mandated by pollution control requirements and therefore not covered by the exclusionary provision in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The exclusionary clause was also read as having been misapplied to deny credit on services procured by the appellant, since such an interpretation would lead to an untenable result. The services were treated as having the necessary statutory and operational connection for the claimed credit.

Conclusion: The credit on these services was held admissible and the disallowance was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with the impugned order being set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior registration is not an indispensable condition for availing CENVAT credit as an input service distributor, and credit on services required by statutory pollution-control obligations cannot be denied by an unduly expansive reading of the exclusionary clause in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

---