Appellant entitled to Cenvat credit for Construction Services used for Repair & Maintenance.

The appellant was allowed to claim Cenvat credit for Construction Services used for Repair and Maintenance. The Tribunal determined that despite the exclusion of Construction Service from the definition of Input Service, services related to Modernization, Renovation, and Repair of factory premises were eligible for credit. The services provided by the appellant were categorized under Repair and Maintenance by the service provider, justifying the appellant's entitlement to the credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
Eligibility of Cenvat credit in respect of Construction Service.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the eligibility of Cenvat credit concerning Construction Service, specifically focusing on whether the appellant was entitled to the credit following an amendment in the definition of Input Service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The department contended that Construction Service was excluded from the definition of Input Service, thus disqualifying the appellant from claiming Cenvat credit.

The appellant, represented by Shri Vinay Kansara, argued that they had availed credit based on invoices from various Construction Companies for services such as Repair and Maintenance, Renovation, and Modernization on the existing plant. It was highlighted that service tax was paid under the category of Repair and Maintenance for all services provided, with the service provider availing a 30% abatement for Repairs and Maintenance. The appellant referenced a previous Tribunal order that allowed credit on Construction Service used for Repairs and Maintenance, supporting their claim for admissible credit.

On the other hand, Shri T.K. Sikdar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the services provided were for civil work like internal plaster and concrete for foundation, which the Commissioner (Appeal) deemed as not falling under Repair and Maintenance service based on specific invoices.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the invoices of the service provider, it was observed that the services rendered were not for new construction but involved civil work on existing buildings, with the service provider categorizing the services under Repair and Maintenance and claiming a 30% abatement. The Tribunal noted that services related to Modernization, Renovation, and Repair of factory premises were still covered under the definition of Input Service despite the exclusion of Construction Service. Therefore, the services of Repair and Maintenance were deemed eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility of Cenvat credit for Construction Services used for Repair and Maintenance, emphasizing the interpretation of the inclusive part of the definition of Input Service and the specific nature of the services provided in the case at hand.

---