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


E/ST/40384/2014 & E/40240/2014


(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 134/2013 (M-III) dated 31.10.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).


M/s.  Caress Beauty Care Products Pvt. Ltd.	:     Applicant     
             
		 Vs.

CCE, Chennai-III						:      Respondent   

Appearance Shri R.J. Pillai, Consultant, for the appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR), for the respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Date of Hearing/Decision : 24.12.2014 FINAL ORDER No. 41020 / 2014 Since, the issue involved is in narrow compass, after disposing the stay application the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the adjudicating authority has disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs. 97,391/- as ineligible credit availed on Gardening and House Keeping Services. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order partially allowed their appeal and allowed input service credit on manpower supply service used in production line, loading and unloading of goods, production supervision services etc., and disallowed the input service credit on manpower used in gardening and house-keeping services and directed the lower authority to re-quantify the credit amount pertaining to ineligible input service credit. Hence, the present appeal.

2. Heard both sides

3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Superintendent of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No. 9/2014 dated 10.10.2014, has quantified the ineligible credit as Rs. 67,312/- and also imposed equal penalty. He submits that the appellant is a manufacturer of shampoo and cold cream and paying excise duty. Therefore, to maintain green cover in their factory area as per statutory requirement, it is essential to engage manpower and they are eligible to avail the input service credit. He submits that both gardening and house-keeping services are essential as per the Pollution Control Act and Drug Control Act. He relies upon the Pollution Control Boards consent Order No. 173 dated 20.12.2004 and as per the clause 16,17,19,23 and 27 the appellants have to maintain green cover. Therefore, they are eligible for the input service credit on gardening and house-keeping services used in their manufacturing premises. The Ld. Consultant relies upon the following case laws:-

1. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmadabad-III 2014 (33) STR 181 (Tri.-Ahd.)

2. CCE, Surat-II Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.

2013 (291) ELT 375 (Tri.- Ahmd.)

4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and gardening is not an input service for manufacture of excisable goods. She relied upon the Tribunal Order in the case of M/s. Tyco Sanmar and M/s. Xomax Sanmar Vs. CCE, Trichy, Final Order No. 917-918/2010 dated 20.08.2010, wherein credit has been disallowed on gardening/landscaping etc as these services are not related to the manufacture of final products.

5. I have carefully examined the submission of both the sides. On perusal of the records, I find that the short issue to be decided is whether the appellant is eligible for availing input service credit on gardening and house-keeping services, as held was disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant is a manufacturer of shampoo and manufacturing cold cream registered with central excise. As seen from the Pollution Control License Order dated 2012.2004 and Schedule-M of the Drug Control Act, it is mandatory for the appellant to maintain green cover and also should use the effluent treated water and keep the factory premises clean. Therefore, as per the statutory requirement, the appellant is required to maintain gardening and green cover and plants and cleanliness of the manufacturing premises. The case law relied upon by the appellant in the case of Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. (supra), applicable to the present case. The Tribunal rightly held that the services used for maintaining the garden will be admissible as it is required to maintain green cover as per law. Whereas, the case law relied upon by the Ld. AR M/s. Tyco Sanmar and M/s. Xomax Sanmar (supra) wherein the issue relates to the cenvat credit on landscaping services and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. I hold that the appellant is eligible for credit on gardening and house-keeping services. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The stay petition is also disposed of.

(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court) (R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 1