Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Wipro Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.148
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Housekeeping services and garden maintenance do not have a sufficient nexus with the manufacturing activity to qualify for Cenvat credit, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing credit on them without recording any reasons connecting those services to manufacture. Courier services have a direct nexus with the business, since communication is an indispensable necessity in the business world, and Cenvat credit on such services is therefore admissible.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.148 & 149/2012 (P), dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. WIPRO LTD. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR)
For the Respondent Shri Minchu Mariam Punnoose, Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 02-03-2015
FINAL ORDER NOs. 40223-40224 / 2015
Revenue has come in appeal in these two appeals challenging the action of learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed the service tax paid on Housekeeping towards Cenvat credit and similar such tax paid in respect of Courier Service availed by the appellant.
2. So far as housekeeping is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error without any cogent reason stated justifying the reason how housekeeping has relevance to manufacture. He has also failed to justify how maintenance of garden has relevance to manufacturing activity. Therefore, Revenue appeal is allowed on these two counts and no Cenvat credit on Housekeeping Services/garden maintenance is admissible.
3. So far as the Courier Services is concerned, that has a direct nexus to business since communications is indispensable necessity in business world. Therefore, Cenvat credit thereon is permissible for which Revenue on this count fails.
4. In view of the above, Revenue appeal is allowed partly to the extent indicated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 10-03-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 02.03.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 03.03.2015 09.03.2015
Fair Order Typing 10.03.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 E/40101,40102/2013
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