M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-Ii

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. Appeals-IMRT/HPR/57/2014-15 dated 30.12.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Meerut].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-II .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 17.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52000/2015-ST(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein input service credit on construction services on residential quarters in factory premises of the appellant is denied by the lower Authorities on the premises that same does not qualify as input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case for the earlier period this Tribunal has allowed Cenvat Credit on the said services as these residential quarters are only dormitories which are required for the factory workers or officials or visitors in the factory for repairs and maintenance or other official work as their factory is located in remote area. Therefore, this construction of these quarters is an integral part of their manufacturing activity. They are entitled to take Cenvat Credit thereon vide Final order no. 165/2012-SM(BR) dated 01.03.2012. He further submits that further also in their own case vide order no. A/1606/2012-SM(BR) dated 29.11.2012 Cenvat Credit was allowed to them in same activity.

3. On the other hand Ld. AR relied on the following case laws:

i) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd.-2008 (232) ELT 169 (AAR).

ii) Chemfab Alkalis Ltd. Vs. CCE Pondicherry-2010 (251) ELT 264 (Tri-Chennai).

iii) CCE Vs. Tigrania Metal & Steel Industries-2001 (132) ELT 103 (Tri-Del).

iv) Polylink Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-II-2013 (31) STR 457 (Tri-Ahmd).

v) CCE Meerut Vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.-2011 (24) STR 497 (Tri-Del).

vi) CCE Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement-2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom).

4. Heard the parties.

5. In the appellants case it is the statutory requirement of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Act 1948 to provide shelter, rest room, lunch room, etc. to the employees within the factory and appellant has provided only these services to their employees within the factory premises and in appellants own case for the earlier periods on the identical services this Tribunal has allowed Cenvat Credit to the appellant. Therefore, following the earlier decision in appellants own case to maintain judicial discipline, I allow Cenvat credit to the appellant.

6. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

ST/50951/2015-ST(SM)