TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service, the same is required for maintaining green belt which is the requirement of pollution control laws - Service of cleaning, the same had been availed for keeping the factory neat and clean and dust free, which is also the statutory requirement of Section 7A and Section 11 to 16 of the Factories Act, 1956 - service of rent a cab availed for bringing the workers to the factory and dropping them home, this issue also stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgments of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh II vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in [2011 (9) TMI 120 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Availment of these services has to be treated as services availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med against the appellant alongwith interest and beside this, penalty of Rs. 2,000/- each was imposed on them. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders of the Joint Commissioner, the same were dismissed vide order-in-appeal No. 08-09 (AKJ) CE/JPR-I/2012 dated 13/2/2012. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pointing out to the findings recorded by original Adjudicating Authority in para 9 (C) and 9 (D) of the order-in-original dated 20/4/11 pleaded that even the original Adjudicating Authority has given a clear finding that availing canteen and housekeeping services for cleaning in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.), the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh II vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 2011 TIOL 650 HC P H ST and also the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. 2012 (25) S.T.R. 428 (Kar.) and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding the denial of Cenvat credit in respect of these services is not sustainable. 4. Ms. S. Bector, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the submissions from both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (supra), CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.), CCE, Ahmedabad I vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. 2011 (21) S.T.R. 8 (Guj.), Balakrishna Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2010 (18) S.T.R. 600 (T), Millipore India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore II 2009 (236) E.L.T. 145 (T), CCE, Bangalore vs. Millipore India (P) Ltd. 2012 (34) STT 86 (Kar.), CCE, Bhavnagar vs. Nirma Ltd. 2010 (20) S.T.R. 346 (T) and Brakes India Ltd. vs. CCE, Mysore 2010 (19) S.T.R. 524 (T). In view of this, the impugned order upholding the denial of Cenvat credit in respect of the services of outdoor catering, gardening and land scaping and cleaning services is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
