Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT 1find that the lower authorities had not denied the cenvat credit on gardening service per se but on the ground that the appellant have not established that the garden is maintained for the purpose of Pollution Control. This reason of the lower authorities is absolutely incorrect on the face of the facts of the case as submitted by the Learned Counsel. It is evident from the consent order of the Pollution Control Committee for renewing the pollution control license that the appellant is required to green up the surrounding of the factory inside and outside. For this reason only the appellant are maintaining the garden, therefore, the entire basis of the department to deny the cenvat credit does not stand.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CESTAT AHMEDABAD
The issue involved is the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit in respect of garden maintenance service for the garden being maintained within the factory premises.
2. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the garden maintenance is a mandatory requirement as per Pollution Control Board. He invited my attention to Consent Order dated 14.03.2018 and 23.01.2015 issued by Pollution Control Committee wherein he pointed out that the consent order is subject to green up the surrounding area inside and outside the factory, therefore, to meet with this condition they are maintaining the garden in the factory. He further submits that they are manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 32 which is ‘Printing inks’ which creates pollution, therefore, it is a mandatory requirement to maintain the garden to keep the environment pollution free, therefore, the credit is admissible on garden maintenance service. He placed reliance on the following judgements:
