Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 87-2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Any service utilised by the assessee in or in relation to the business activities of the assessee is an input service for the purposes of CENVAT credit, and the definition of input service is to be construed widely, so that services used for running the business qualify irrespective of their specific nature. Where the services in question (colony security, transport, guest house maintenance, vehicle insurance, consultation, and similar services) have been held in earlier Tribunal decisions to be input services, and are utilised in or in relation to the business activities of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on them, and the Revenue's appeal against that entitlement fails.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 87-2009 dated 14/07/2009 passed by CCE&C(Appeals), Visakhapatnam]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD ZINC SMELTER PO, VISAKHAPATNAM Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
Shri G.P. Sastry, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 13/02/2015
Date of Decision: 13/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20869 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the authorities below, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. The short issue involved is as to whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on colony security services, transport service, guest house maintenance service as also vehicle insurance, consultation fee, jungle clearance, civil work maintenance, dismantling/erection of heat exchangers, replacement of filter cloth, tractor hiring and watering charges, plantation/horticulture maintenance charges etc. I find that all the activities are more or less covered by the decisions of various courts. Some references can be made to the Tribunal decision in the same assessees case reported as CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009(16) STR 704 (Tri. Bang.)] as also to the decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2013(31) STR 575 (Tri. Del.)]. Otherwise also, all the services involved in the present appeal stand utilised by the assessee in or in relation to the business activities of the respondent. As per various decisions, it is settled that the definition of input service is very wide and any service utilised for running of the business has to be held ad input service. Reference can be made to Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of AP [1994(53) ECR 200 SC].
2. In view of the above, I find no merits in the Revenues appeal. Accordingly the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free