TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to civil construction work in the factory. It is seen that originally show-cause notice was issued denying the benefit of credit in respect of various services. However, Commissioner vide his impugned order disallowed the Cenvat credit in respect of the following: (i) Labour hutments; (ii) Kisan sheds; (iii) Vastu consultancy (iv) Dismantling for building structure of sugar house. The above credit stand denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the above services are not covered by the definition of input services as available under Rule 2. He has also observed that the same are neither related to production activity nor fall under the construction of factory and as such cannot be held to be eligible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any contravention of these provisions will attract criminal prosecution. As such, she submits that same being a mandatory statutory requirement for the supply of inputs supplier, the service is covered by the term 'procurement of inputs'. She places reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 21 STT 321 (Bang. - CESTAT) wherein by following the larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. - CESTAT) support of her above submissions. 4. As regards the Vastu consultancy, it is submitted that the same has to be treated as a part of architect services used for construction of building. Inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding temporary residential facility to the workers as also for the cane growers. In terms of Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953, a manufacturer of sugar is required to provide adequate facilities, subject to the satisfaction of Cane Commissioner as regards shelter and drinking water facilities at all purchasing centres. As such, the observations of the adjudicating authority that the same are only welfare measures facilities not connected with the appellants activities, cannot be held to be eligible modvatable services, is not correct. The appellant is under a statutory obligation to provide the above facility. As rightly contended by the learned advocate, the Tribunal in the above referred decisions has he....