TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Service Tax [Service Tax Appeal No.75392/2016, Order No.75583/2025 dated 05-03- 2025]; (iv) M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar [2025-VIL-2205-CESTAT-KOL- CE] ; (v) M/s Brahmani River Pellets Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate [2023 (10) TMI 287 - CESTAT KOLKATA] ; (vi) M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax, Ranchi [2021 (10) TMI 383-CESTAT Kolkata] ; (vii) M/s Texmaco UGL Rail (P) LTD Vs. CCE, Kolkata III Commissionerate [2019 (7) TMI 1651 - CESTAT Kol] ; (viii) M/s Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (10) TMI 2198-CESTAT New Delhi] ; (ix) Kellogs India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupathi [GST 2020 (7) TMI 414-CESTAT Hyd] ; (x) Shiruguppi Sugar Works Ltd Vs. CCT & CE, Belgaum [2019 (3) TMI 667 (CESTAT Bang)] ; (xi) M/s Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd Vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula [(2019 (2) TMI 1292-(CESTAT Chandigarh)] ; (xii) Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Commissionerate, Tirupati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout availing the aforesaid services, the Appellant could not have set up the factory for manufacture of the goods. Hence, the input services utilized for setting up of a factor are covered within the ambit of 'means clause' i.e. service "used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products". Since the subject input services are covered in the 'main clause' of the definition of input service, unless it is specifically excluded under the excludes clause of the definition, the Appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit on the subject input services used in setting up of the factory. This view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCT, Tirupati, 2021 (7) TMI 1094-CESTAT Hyderabad. The relevant part of the decision is extracted below: 16. We find that the definition of 'input service prior to 1.04.2011 had two parts- a main part of the definition and an inclusive part of the Excise Appeal No. 76189 of 2018 5 definition. This inclusive part specifically included the services availed for 'setting up the factory'. After 1.04.2011, it has three parts- a main part, an inclus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post 2011, the service in question need not be covered even by the very wide definition of manufacturer under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Any service which is used not only in manufacture but also 'in relation to' manufacture will also qualify as input service. The scope of input service is further enlarged with the expression whether directly or indirectly used in the definition of input service. Thus, there are: a) Actual manufacture; b) Processes incidental or ancillary to manufacture which are also manufacture; c) Activities directly in relation to manufacture (i.e., in relation to 'a' and 'b' above); d) Activities indirectly in relation to manufacture (i.e., in relation to 'a' and 'b' above); 22. All four of the above qualify as input service as per Rule 2(I) (ii) as applicable post 1.4.2011. Although setting up the factory is not manufacture in itself, it is an activity directly in relation to manufacture. Without setting up the factory, there cannot be any manufacture. Service used in setting up the factory are, therefore, unambiguously covered as 'input services ' under Rule 2 (I) (ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g up of the factory eve after 01.04.2011 would be eligible for credit." 10. We observe that similar position has also been held in the following decisions: * Jindal Steel and Power Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rourkela vide Final order No. 75613/2023 dated 08.06.2023. * Shell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North 2021-VIL-820-CESTAT-BLR-ST maintained in 2023-VIL-01-KAR-ST. *Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-II 2023-VIL-136-CESTAT-Mum-ST. * Hindustan Zink Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Excise & Customs, Udaipur 2021 (8) TMI 872-CESTAT New Delhi. * Kellogs India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCT, Tirupathi GST, 2020 (7) TMI 414 - CESTAT Hyderabad. Excise Appeal No. 76293 of 2017 8 * CCE, Kolkata Vs. Texmaco UGL Rail, 2019 (7) TMI 1651- CESTAT Kolkata. * Hindalco Industries Ltd., Vs. CGST, Jabalpur, 2019 (5) TMI 1620- CESTAT New Delhi. * Linde India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Rourkela 2023 (5) TMI 718 - CESTAT, Kolkata. * Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Vs. CCE & ST, Ranchi 2023 (6) TMI 297- CESTAT-Kolkata. 11. Followin....