TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of GPCB wherein it is specifically mandated that High COD and Low TDS effluents shall be sent to BEIL,a GPCB controlled site for proper treatment and disposal of the waste. It is his submission that the treatment of the waste arising out of the manufacture is mandatory as per the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and without complying the order of the GPCB regarding treatment of factory waste, the appellant cannot carry out their manufacturing activity, therefore, the effluent treatment service received by the appellant is in or in relation to manufacture of final product and the same is admissible input service and credit must be allowed. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • Cheminova India Ltd. Final order dated 28.06.2023 • Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. 2015 (7) TMI 970 CESTAT (AHM) • Wipro Enterprises (P Ltd. 2018 (12) TMI 1167 CESTAT Chennai • Anar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (24) STR 32 • Indian Farmer Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd 1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC) • UOI vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 2019 (367) ELT 616 (Raj.) • CCE vs Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. 1989 (43) RLT 201 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egra as in the various judgments the services related to effluent treatment has been held as admissible input service and cenvat credit was allowed. Some of the judgments are cited below:- In case of M/S KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRES LTD (supra) this tribunal dealt with the similar fact and passed the following order:- 4. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether certain pollution control services availed by the appellant are eligible to CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 or not. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the activities in relation to business have been deleted from the definition of input services during the relevant period. It is observed from the permissions granted by Gujarat Pollution Control Board under The Water (Prevention And Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, that Appellant was required to maintain certain standards of effluent from Appellants factory as a mandatory and statutory necessity. When the activity is required to be done mandatorily under a statutory obligation, then it cannot be said that the same is not in relation to the manufacture of finished goods in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pondicherry - 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 172 (Mad.) wherein the jurisdictional High Court has held that Housekeeping and Landscaping Services were entitled to CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on them. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that the appellant has rightly availed Credit on Water Treatment Service and Garden Maintenance Service for which reason I set aside the demand raised on this count. 10. To sum up: (i) Demand on Rent-a-Cab Service for the period from April 2008 to March 2009 is set aside; (ii) Demand on Rent-a-Cab Service for the period from December 2011 to October 2012 is upheld with interest thereon; (iii) The demand raised on Water Treatment Service and Garden Maintenance Service for the period January 2015 to December 2015 is set aside; 11. The appeals are partly allowed on the above terms. Similarly, in the case of ANAR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 2011 (24) S.T.R. 32 (TRI. - AHMD.) this bench of the tribunal on the maintenance service of effluent treatment plant allowed the cenvat credit, the relevant order is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate authority has observed that the issue of non-payment of Service Tax by service provider was raised in the Audit. Whether this was the audit of present appellant or of the service provider is not clear. As such, I would like the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the said issues afresh after taking note of various decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant before me. 4. In view of the above, the demand of Rs. 1,01,797/- (Rupees One Lakh, One Thousand, Seven Hundreds and Ninety Seven Only) along with interest and penalty of identical amount is set aside. In respect of other issues, the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), for fresh consideration. 5. The appeal is disposed off in above manner. The similar issue related to effluent treatment plan has been dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of INDIAN FARMERS FERTLIZERS CO-OPERATIVE LTD 1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed the following issue:- 7. Emphasis was laid, and rightly, by learned counsel for the appellants on the phraseology used in the manufacture of ammonia provided such ammonia is used elsewhere in the manufacture of fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dium sulphate" is used in the chemical recovery cycle of sodium sulphate which forms an essential constituent of sulphate cooking liquor used in the digestion operation". The Exemption Notification concerned provided exemption to goods which had used as raw material or component parts any goods (inputs) falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act from so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as was equivalent to the excise duty paid on the inputs. The Court quoted what had been said in Dy. CST v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd., namely, "Consumption must be in the manufacture as raw material or of other components which go into the making of the end-product ........." and observed that, correctly apprehended, that statement did not lend itself to the understanding that for something to qualify itself as a raw material it had necessarily and in all cases to go into and be found in the end-product. The court also quoted with approval the case of Eastend Paper Industries Limited cited above. 9. That leaves us to consider whether the raw naphtha used to produce the ammonia which is used in the effluent treatment plant is eligible for the said exemption. It is too late ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f effluent from Appellants factory as a mandatory and statutory necessity. When the activity is required to be done mandatorily under a statutory obligation, then it cannot be said that the same is not in relation to the manufacture of finished goods in Appellants factory. This principle was settled by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad (supra), where duty free raw material Naptha used for effluent treatment plant, was held to be eligible for exemption. Para 9 of this case law is relevant and is reproduced below:- "9. That leaves us to consider whether the raw? naphtha used to produce the ammonia which is used in the effluent treatment plant is eligible for the said exemption. It is too late in the day to take the view that the treatment of effluents from a plant is not an essential and integral part of the process of manufacture in the plant. The emphasis that has rightly been laid in recent years upon the environment and pollution control requires that all plants which emit effluents should be so equipped as to rid the effluents of dangerous properties. The apparatus used for such treatment of effluents in a plant ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as its end-product urea, which is a fertiliser. These off-site plants are part of the process of the manufacture of urea. There is no good reason why the exemption should be limited to the raw naphtha used for producing ammonia that is utilised directly in the urea plant. The Exemption Notification does not require that the ammonia should be used directly in the manufacture of fertilisers. It requires only that the ammonia should be used in the manufacture of fertilisers. The Exemption Notification must be so construed as to give due weight to the liberal language it uses. The ammonia used in the water treatment, steam generation and inert gas generation plants, which are a necessary part of the process of manufacturing urea, must, therefore, be held to be used in the manufacture of ammonia and the raw naphtha used for the manufacture thereof is entitled to the duty exemption. 8. For our conclusion we draw support from the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 = 1989 (4) SCC 244, where it was held, "Where any particular process......................is so integrally connected with the ul....