Availment of Cenvat Credit of tax paid on Repairs and Maintenance services for Wind mill as Input services

[samiuddin ansari]

First of all thanks ! for inviting query on issues related to GST and other related matter, however, my query related to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services. One unit namely, 'X: engaged in the manufacture of ball bearings falling under Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The unit is also availing and utilizing cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services related to Repairs and Maintenance of Wind mill owned by the above unit, generating electricity which in turn is being collected by state owned electricity grid located at far flung area from the registered factory premises and, also set off is being provided in the form of power supply to the factory premises through local grid. Here, my observation is input services are not being used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods or in providing output services. In other words, it has no directly or indirectly nexus with manufacture of dutiable goods or provision of taxable output services, not only this it does not qualify the definition provided in Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as amended for input or input services eligible for availment of Cenvat Credit. My question is as to whether the charges paid for repairs and maintenance services of wind mill would qualifies as Input service for availment of Cenvat Credit of tax paid thereon.

AI Summary

Can Cenvat Credit be claimed for service tax on windmill repairs under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? A query was raised regarding the eligibility of availing Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for repairs and maintenance of a windmill owned by a manufacturing unit producing ball bearings. The windmill generates electricity supplied to the state grid, indirectly benefiting the factory. The concern was whether such services qualify as input services under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, given their lack of direct nexus with the manufacture of goods. Responses included references to relevant case laws, suggesting further review of legal precedents to determine eligibility.