Input service credit remains admissible for plant-related works, not civil construction, where the evidence excludes the barred category.

Services used for site formation, excavation, earthmoving, demolition, and maintenance or repair of plant were held to fall within the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because they were not services of civil construction, building construction, or laying of foundation. The original authority had given a reasoned finding on the invoices and nature of services, while the appellate reversal was unsupported by reasons. Credit was therefore admissible, and the order denying credit was set aside with restoration of the original order allowing the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the services on which Cenvat credit was availed were eligible as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, or were excluded as civil construction services.

Analysis: The original authority had examined the invoices and the nature of each service and recorded a reasoned finding that the services were in the nature of site formation, excavation, earthmoving, demolition, maintenance and repair of plant, and not construction of a building, civil structure or laying of foundation. The appellate authority reversed that finding without assigning reasons. On the material on record, the services did not fall within the specifically excluded category and were covered by the definition of input service.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the contrary appellate order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order denying credit was set aside and the original order allowing the credit claim was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows that the services are used for plant-related activities and not for construction of a building, civil structure or foundation, they remain eligible input services unless specifically excluded by the governing definition.

---