2019 (1) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the construction service during the period from April 2005 to October, 2006 is not admissible to the assessee/appellant, as these were not related to any of its manufacturing activity/input services. Resultantly, a show cause notice No.7795 dated 07.11.2007 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of the said availed credit of Rs. 4,81,181/- alongwith the interest leviable under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith the penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said proposed demand was initially confirmed by the original adjudicating authority vide order No.621 dated 10th June, 2013. The demand was upheld vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he construction of the staff quarters/ bachelor house etc. has rightly been held as welfare activity for the employees with no nexus to the business thereof, without which the benefit of cenvat credit is not allowable. The appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that the definition of input service as enshrined under Rule (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, though has been amended to exclude the construction activity irrespective in relation to the business, but the said amendment had come into existence post 2011. The period in dispute here is April, 2005 to October, 2006. Hence the exclusion clause is not applicable in the present case. 6. The issue therefore as remains to be ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is much wider than the definition of input. The ratio of Maruti Suzuki decision is applicable on the context of definition of input alone. In the present case also emphasis is about the input services and not the input alone. I am also drawing my support from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-II vs. ITC Ltd. reported in 2013 (32) STR 288 (A.P.) wherein it is held as follows:- 9. The Commissioner's Order-in-Appeal dated 27-5-2008 reflects that he accepted that the efficiency of the employees of an organization would be dependent on various factors, one such being the provision of a housing colony. He further conceded that these facilities would contribute to the enhancement of the productiv....