2017 (10) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... d) Garden Maintenance Service and e) Servicing of Windmill at the site at Satara 3. Ld. AR argued that while the respondents have admitted credit in respect of catering/meals services, vehicle maintenance service, insurance service and garden maintenance service is not admissible to them from 01/04/2011. They have however, claimed that the said credit would be admissible for the period prior to 01/04/2011. The said arguments have been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the order of the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri-LB) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (19) 356 (Tri-Bang). In so far as the credit in respect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacturing process. In respect of services of windmill at the site, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PSG & Sons Charities Metallurgy & Foundry Division - 2009 (243) ELT 411 (Tri-Chennai) and on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. - 2009 (13) STR 619 (Tri-Chennai). He argued that there is no restriction in the definition of input service and these services are used only at the factory. 6. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the respondents are not claiming the credit in respect of (a) Catering/Meal Services (b) Vehicle Maintenance Service (c) Insurance Service of Vehicle (d) Garden Maintenance Service for the period after 01/04/2011. However, they ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and which are identified earlier are as under : (I) Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit on "management, maintenance or repair services" provided on services provided to Windmills installed and situated away from factory and factory premises? (II) Whether electricity generated at Supa and Satara, situated far away, could be said to have been used for manufacture of the final product of the assessee at Waluj, Aurangabad? 3. The question No. [II] can be answered in affirmative because admittedly, the electricity generated at Supa and Satara which are situated far away from the manufacturing unit of the appellant can be said to have used for manufacture of final ....