2021 (9) TMI 1193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ardous waste. The transportation cost for disposal of Hazardous waste was borne by the appellant as per the clause in the tri- parte agreement between M/S Satyen Flourine Industires and Gujarat Paper Mills Association and NR Agarwal. 2. Shri Suriyanarayanan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the credit was denied by both the lower authority relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX Vs ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD- 2018 (2) TMI 117- (SC). He submits that the issue in the present case is different from the facts of the case of the of the Ultra Tech Judgment. He submits that this not a case of removal of excisable goods however, during the process of manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtation is covered under the main clause of dentition provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the judgment of ultratech of the Apex Court is not at all relevant in the facts of the present case. The identical issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of M/S L'OREAL INDIA PVT LTD (Supra) wherein certain services were used for disposal of Hazardous waste and credit in respect of such service has been allowed. The relevant judgment is reproduced below: "3. The short issue involved is as to whether the respondent is entitled to service tax paid on the services utilized for removal of hazardous waste. Commissioner (Appeals) has held in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- "9. On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovisions it is evident that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to dispose off the said hazardous waste generated during the course of manufacture and therefore disposal of waste is part and parcel of the manufacturing activity and has a direct nexus with the manufacturing process. Had it been the facility of disposal of such waste was available in the factory, the appellant would have done it in house. However, since the said facility is not available with the Appellant they have opted to get the same done outside factory. Therefore there is no force in stand taken by Respondent that the said activity is post manufacturing activity. Thus it is very clear that the such disposal of Hazardous material is mandatory for the appellant ....