TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cotton fabrics, was availing facility of Cenvat credit of duty paid on 'input service' as well as capital goods and input service credit; that the appellant availed credit of service tax of Rs. 9,78,547/- on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Associated Constructions (AC in short) who undertake construction of compound wall for the appellant; that as the construction of 'compound wall' was not falling under the definition of 'input service', as the appellant has not used the service for providing any output service as well as the said service is not used by the appellant directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and for the clearances of final products, it was alleged that the appellant availed inadmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (iii) that the excise registration for appellant's factory was granted for the entire area including compound wall of the factory and the compound wall is a part of the factory and therefore, included in the Excise registration and it is not open to the Department to take a view that the compound wall is not a part of the factory; (iv) that once the compound wall is treated as a part of the factory, for the registration purpose, it has to be treated as part of the factory for all rules and regulations under Central Excise Statute; (v) that the impugned order conveniently overlooked the above factual position with a sole intention of disallowing legitimate credit of the service tax on the compound wall; (vi) that the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the same cannot be allowed as 'input service' to the appellant. Whereas the appellant claims that the 'input service' includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of factory. In the instant case, the appellant constructed a new factory and afterwards, they constructed compound wall around the factory. The appellant relies mainly on two decisions of the Apex Court i.e. (i) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. CCE, M.P. - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 357 (S.C.) and (ii) CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.). The appellant relies on the decision of the Apex Court with reference to first referred above, according to which, the Apex Court has held that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal". 4.2 From the above definition, it is clear that 'input service' includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory. In the instant case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise Registration was granted for the manufacture of excisable goods at "Raymond Zambaiti Private Limited, Plot No. T-1, Kagal - Hatkanangale Indl. Area, Kagal, Kolhapur, Maharashtra - 416 216". Under Condition No. 1, it has been clearly mentioned that this registration certificate is valid for the premises and purposes specified in the application. So the whole premises have been registered under the Central Excise for the purpose of manufacture of excisable goods. While applying for registration, the appellant is supposed to submit 'ground plan'. The copy of the 'ground plan' submitted by the appellant also reveals that ground plan includes compound wall also. I have already held that no factory will function without compound wall. It c....