M/S. Pierlite India Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal5 March 2015

CitationAppeal No. : E/158/2011

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Cenvat credit on housekeeping and gardening services is admissible where the services are essential to maintaining the environment required for manufacture, as evidenced by the pollution control permission requiring such maintenance, following the settled position in the decisions relied upon.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,West Zonal Bench, AhmedabadAppeal No. : E/158/2011

(Arising out of OIA-369/2010-AHD-I-CE/MM/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 16.12.2010, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad )

M/s. Pierlite India Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 05.03.2015

ORDER No. A/10206 / 2015 Dated 05.03.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 369/2010 (AHD-I)CE/MM/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 16.12.2010. The issue involved is regarding admissibility of cenvat credit on House Keeping and Gardening Services.

2. Shri Paritosh Gupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant brought to the notice of the Bench Para 3.3.2 of the Pollution Control permission No. PC/CCA/ABD/AMC-536/6322 dated 25.03.2009 to drive home the point that both the House Keeping Service and Gardening Services are essential for maintaining the proper environment for manufacture. Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments:-

(i) Brakes India Limited vs. CCE, Mysore [2010 (19) STR 524 (Tri. Bang.)]

(ii) CCE, Bangalore vs. Millipore India Pvt. Limited [2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar.)]

(iii) NTF (India) Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Delhi [2013 (30) STR 575 (Tri. Del.)]

3. Shri K. Sivakumar, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the order passed by the first appellate authority.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. In view of the settled preposition of law, as per the relied upon judgments, cenvat credit of Housekeeping Service and Gardening Services is admissible to the appellant. Appeal filed by the appellant is thus allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL

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