Emerson Process Management Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1569 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 31-5-2018
Appeal No. E/42487/2017, E/42486/2017 – FINAL ORDER No. 41723-41724/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial)
Shri S. Adithya, Consultant For the Appellant
Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
The issues involved in both these appeals are similar, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Industrial valves, regulators, actuators and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of verification of accounts for the period from April 2015, June 2015, July 2015, September 2015 and November 2015, it was noticed that the appellants had availed service tax credit for various services like Garden upke
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
maintenance services as per the requirement under the Statute to maintain a garden (Green Area) in terms of Pollution Control Order and under Factories Act. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s.Rane TRW Steering System Ltd, 2018-TIOL-414- HC-MAD-CX, High Court of Madras. With regard to credit availed on interior decorator service, he submitted that these services were used only for modernization and repairs of the premises. He adverted to the sample invoice and argued that the works carried out were merely Rectification of welding booth floor, LVP paint booth scrubber foundation concrete work, Manual cover, plastic work indicating that these were merely repair and rectification works and therefore are covered by the definition of input services. With regard to credit availed on renting of immovable property, he submitted that the appellant had paid rent for the Branch Offices and the same has been denied stating that these branch offices are situated outside the factory and t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
appellant is eligible for garden upkeep/maintenance services. The appellant is a manufacturer and as per pollution control norms, they are required to maintain certain percentage of green area in their factory premises. The Hon.High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Rane TRW Steering System Ltd (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that the credit is eligible. Following the same, I am of the view that the denial of credit is unjustified and requires to be set aside which I hereby do.
8. The second issue that arises for consideration is the credit availed on interior decorator services. It is brought out from evidence that the appellant had furnished invoices relating to the services. It is stated in para 18 of Order-in-Original No.08/2016 that the interior decorator service for designing and drawing of their office and workstations does not have a nexus with manufacturing activity and therefore it is not eligible for credit. The appellant had done some minor civil work
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =