M/S Electrical Research & Development ... vs Cce Vadodara-Ii

Appeal No.ST/10628/2014-SM (Arising out of: OIA No.VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-489-2013-14, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vadodara-II)

M/s Electrical Research & Development Association Appellant

Vs

CCE Vadodara-II Respondent

Represented by:

For Assessee: Shri H.D. Dave, Adv.

For Revenue: Shri Alok Srivastava, Dy.Commissioner (AR)

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:02.01.15

Order No. A/10006 / 2015, dt.02.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,90,599.00 for the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 on the input service, namely Rent-a-cab service and Gardening service.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that Rent-a-cab Operator service or Bus operator services was utilized by them for transportation of their staff members, officers and employees from their residence to the factory and from the factory to the residence and for many other works undertaken by their staff members, officers engaged in the business activity of production and sale of finished goods. It is also contended by the appellant that the gardening services were used for controlling to the pollution and environment of the factory premises and production activity.

3. Ld.Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that these services have no direct nexus to the manufacturing activity. He also submits that the gardening would not be necessary for pollution control.

4. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd vs CCE Rajkot 2008-TIOL-1691-CESTAT-AHM allowed the CENVAT Credit on Rent-a-cab service on the identical facts. It is seen that the Tribunal in the case of M/s ISMT Ltd Vs CCE Aurangabad  2010-TIOL-27-CESTAT-MUM, held that a good garden creates a better atmosphere and environment which increases the working efficiency and CENVAT Credit was allowed.

5. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3