2015 (10) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e come in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned DR pointed out that there is no nexus between services received and item manufactured. Revenue relied upon Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) where nexus between input and output was considered necessary. Appellant also relied upon CESTAT's judgment in Alora Times Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot (citation) wherein on the question of nexus, the input services credit was not allowed. DR also referred to the Mumbai High Court's judgment in the case of Manikgarh Cement reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom.) but learned DR fairly agreed that above judgment related to the residential colony, may not be relevant to the present appeal under consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.), CCE v. Ultratech Cement - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.), and Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 645. 5. He further stated that input service credit is available as per the Karnataka High Court judgment and the CCE, Chandigarh v. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. He referred to the judgment of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, CCE v. Ultratech Cement and CCE, Bangalore v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 6. Heard both sides. Also gone through the facts on records. 7. Main issue for consideration is whether Cenvat credit is available on house-keeping service and business auxiliary service. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit on above ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Cleaning services are taken by the noticee as a pollution control measure and to ensure a healthy surrounding to all its employees. Further in the case of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement, in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 362 (Com. Appl.), decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) has been referred. The Apex Court in the above case held that the pollution control equipment/devices were treatable as part and parcel of manufacturing activity. In the case before the Apex Court, the items involved are equipments and devices which were used to control the pollution and accordingly the Apex Court held that the same are to be treated as part and parcel of the manufacturing activity. Followi....