Cites 1 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Brakes India Ltd vs Cce, Ltu Chennai on 25 January, 2016
        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

Appeal Nos. E/40427 to 40433/2014

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.73 to 79/2013 dated 4.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

M/s. Brakes India Ltd.
M/s. Apache Exports						Appellant

      
      Vs.


CCE, LTU Chennai        					Respondent

Appearance Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 25.01.2016 Final Order No. 40090-40096 / 2016 Para 7 of the appellate order depicts that the plantation made by the appellant is construed by the authorities below as gardening service provided. Appellant pleaded before the appellate authority that both Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) required the appellant industry to maintain within its premises a green belt area comprising planting of 1000 trees per acre of land and effective usage of water. When this was the requirement of the pollution control agencies, constructing the activity carried out by the appellant as gardening service is of factual error. The controlling authorities when meant that the water consumption and pollution control can only be mitigated by the measures directed to be complied by the appellant, there shall be no compromise under law to deny CENVAT credit of the services availed to adhere to such control measure.

2. Honble High Court of Madras had occasion to examine the case of the adherence to eco-friendly situation in CCE, LTU, Chennai Vs. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd.  2015 (39) STR 13 (Mad.). For benefit of reading, para 8 of judgment is relevant. Honble Court has held that maintaining an eco-friendly atmosphere being need of law, taxable services availed to adhere such requirement, shall not disentitle the recipient of such service to the CENVAT credit. Following such ratio, all the appeals are allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2