M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd vs C.C.E. Jaipur-Ii
- CitationAppeal No. E/2305/2011-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer maintains a residential colony for its employees in a remote area near its factory, to facilitate round-the-clock working of the factory, the Cenvat credit on security services availed for that residential colony is admissible; the Tribunal follows its own earlier decisions in the same appellant's case and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in ITC Ltd., in preference to the contrary view of the Bombay High Court in Manikgarh Cement, neither being a jurisdictional High Court, and it is not necessary to refer the question to a larger bench where the Tribunal's own binding precedent in the appellant's case already resolves it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 140(CB)CE/JPR-II/2011 dated 28.06.2011 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].
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. Ultratech Cement Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-II .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50344/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein input services credit on security services availed by the appellant in residential colony was denied on the premise that same does not qualify as Input Service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of cement and having their factory in the remote area where they have constructed residential colony for residence of their employees to facilitate the working of the factory round the clock. They availed security services thereon and availed Cenvat Credit which was sought to be denied by the authorities below. As the security services as residential colony have no nexus remotely with the activity in the manufacturing of the appellant, the appeal is in appeal against the said order.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the decision of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of C.C. & C.E. Hyderabad Vs. ITC Ltd. -2012-TIOL-199-HC-AP-ST, they are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit which was followed by this Tribunal in appellants own case for subsequent period vide the final order no. A/53885/14-SM(BR) dated 13.10.2014, A/1680/2012-SM(BR) dated 21.12.2012, A/50567/2014-SM(BR) dated 18.02.2014 and A/51418/2014-SM(BR) dated 27.03.2014. Therefore, he prayed that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit. Hence, impugned order be set aside.
4. On the other hand Ld.AR strongly opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the security services at residential colony have no nexus with the manufacturing activity / the business of the appellant. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on security services availed at residential colony. To support his contention he relied on the decision in the case of C.C.E. Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement-2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom). Therefore, he prayed that impugned order be upheld. He also submits when there are two contrary decisions, matter may be referred to larger bench.
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. In the case of Manikgarh Cement (Supra) Honble High Court of Bombay has denied Cenvat Credit on the services availed at the residential colony but in the case of ITC ltd. (Supra) the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has allowed Cenvat Credit for the services availed at the residential colony. Both the decisions placed before me are not of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, I have got the liberty to decide the issue on its own merits without influencing the decision of the Honble High Courts. As I find that in appellants own case for subsequent period this Tribunal held that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit, therefore, I do not find any need to refer the matter to the larger bench to decide the issue. Further, I find that in this case the facts of the case are similar to the facts of case of ITC Ltd. (Supra) wherein residential colony was located in remote area near to the factory. In these circumstances, following the preceded decision of this Tribunal in appellants own case I hold that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit on security services availed in residential colony which is located near to the factory in remote area.
7. Therefore impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/2305/2011-EX(SM)
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