TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acture of Caustic Soda lay & Products, CP, HM HDPE, Metal Container and Fly Ash Bricks falling under Chapter Heading 28, 29, 39, 68 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under provisions of the Credit Rules. 3. The factory of the Appellant is located at a remote place, significantly away from any established locality and is running on continuous (24 x 7) basis. These facts are not in dispute. Thus, in order to have prompt availability of the workers, employees and office staff, the Appellant is required to extend proper residential accommodation. 4. In order to safeguard the factory alongwith adjoining residential area from any theft, damage or destruction,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax Audit Commissionerate, Lucknow on 10.12.2015 to 12.12.2015, wherein certain objections with respect to payment of service tax and availment of credit were raised. 8. Based on the audit observations, the Show Cause Notice [SCN] was issued to the Appellant which proposed to demand Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 6,21,904 under Rule 14 of the Credit Rules read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act and Service Tax amounting to Rs. 7,43,296 under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act. 9. The SCN also alleged that the Appellant had willfully suppressed facts and had contravened the provision of Credit Rules & Central Excise Act. The Appellant filed a detailed reply on 27.3.2018, wherein it contested the demand on merits as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Manikgarh Cement 2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom.) and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (22) STR 610 (Guj.): b) That the Appellant has relied upon plethora of case laws, however, failed to explain how can same be applied to the impugned case. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. RL Vaid 2004 (172) ELT 24 (SC) and CCE, Bangalore Vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) ELT 577 (SC); and c) That under the self- assessment scheme, the Appellant was required to avail and utilize the credit correctly, whereas the Department detected the wrongful availment of Cenvat Credit only during the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al colony in the close vicinity and the residential colony had to be maintained as well. The Tribunal had observed that if accommodation was not provided by the Company to its employees at such a remote location, it would not be feasible for the manufacturer to carry out the manufacturing activity. The High Court, therefore, observed that in such circumstances the finding of the Tribunal that staff colony provided by the Respondent Company, being directly and intrinsically linked to its manufacturing activity, could not be excluded was correct and consequently the services which were crucial for maintaining the staff colony had necessarily to be considered as "input service" falling within the ambit of Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules. 37. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant would not be entitled to Cenvat Credit. Likewise, in IFB Industries Limited a general observation has been made that maintenance of a guest house will not fall within the definition of "input service". 40. It is not the case of the Department that the employees/workers are living in private residential houses where security has been provided by the factory. It is an admitted fact that the residential colony is provided by the factory and it is situated within the premises owned by the Appellant and close to the mining area and offices. The residential colony has been built by the Appellant for the benefit of its employees/workers and has been maintained by the Appellant. It is necessary for the Appellant to maintain the residenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e credit and not disputed it even before the issuance of the show cause notice. The only issue that was raised by the Appellant was with regard to the imposition of penalty and that was decided in favour of the Appellant. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the Department that the Appellant cannot take a stand, in proceedings relating to a subsequent year, that Cenvat Credit on security services had been correctly availed by it. The aforesaid decision cannot, therefore, come to the aid of the Department." 15. I find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the abovementioned decision of the Tribunal. Further, it is an admitted fact that the residential colony/township is located at a remote place, where no municipal service....