BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this appeal against the order of denial of Cenvat credit on the input services viz. Insurance on company vehicles, tours & travels, factory garden maintenance and plant housekeeping services.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the lower authority had denied Cenvat credit to the appellants on factory garden maintenance and plant housekeeping services observing that they are not related to in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and not falling under the definition of "Input services" and with regard to the insurance service and tours & travels they found that the appellant has failed to provide any records in respect of these service. Accordingly, credit was denied. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before me.

(3.) SHRI J.H. Motwani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that with regard to plant housekeeping service and garden maintenance service, their case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ISMT Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Aurangabad as reported in, 2010 TIOL 27 (CESTAT -Mum.). Further in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vide order No. A/772/2009/SMB/C -IV dated 18 -12 -09, this Tribunal again held that garden maintenance service is eligible for availment of Cenvat credit. With regard to plant maintenance he relied on Sanghi Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 167 (Tri. -Ahmd.) : 2009 (234) E.L.T. 367 (Tri. -Ahmd.) wherein it was held that Cenvat credit on maintenance of plant is admissible. With regard to other two services, he placed copy of invoices and details which were not placed before the lower authorities. He submitted that the lower authorities rejected the Cenvat credit on this service only because he failed to submit the documents, hence he submitted that with regard to these two services matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents and allow credit.