M/S. SHREE CEMENT LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by Shree Cement Limited against the order in appeal No. 290/2010 dated 16.8.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. They have availed Cenvat credit in respect of input services namely, erection, commissioning and installation, man -power recruitment and civil construction, used in the employees staff colony, canteen and residence of the Executive Director of the Company. Department took a view that these services were not used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products and as such, are not eligible to be classified as input services as defined in 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was issued on 8.5.08 demanding Service tax of Rs. 2,24,490/ - pertaining to the period June, 2007 to March, 2008 under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was adjudicated by order -in -original No. 281/2009 dated 17.4.09 confirming the tax amount. Appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal and upheld the order -in -original. The appellant preferred this appeal against the appellate order.

(3.) LEARNED DR reiterates the finding of the lower authorities stating that these services were used in the staff colony, canteen and the residence of Executive Director which were located far away from the factory and therefore, these services were not used in relation to the manufacture of final product. He submits that the appellant had claimed these services in relation to activity of business as defined in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. reported as [ : 2013 (1) ECS (1) (Guj -HC)] in which case Hon'ble High Court has made certain observations on the activities related to business. He submits that activity which were mentioned after the words such as defined like accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control etc. would only be eligible under the category of activity related to business. The issue of disputed activities like erection commissioning, installation and man power recruitment and civil construction are not mentioned after the words such as and not be related to activities of business as claimed by the appellant.