Case Details: Endurance Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-I (2025) 37 Centax 220 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ajay Sharma, Member (J) & C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
- Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, had availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on services used for the processing and disposal of hazardous chemical waste, as mandated by the statutory authorities. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and confirmed recovery under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest and penalty, holding that such services had no nexus with manufacture and were not covered under the definition of input service. The appellant contended that the disposal of hazardous waste was a statutory requirement arising directly from manufacturing operations and therefore formed an integral part of factory activities. The matter was accordingly placed before Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the removal and disposal of hazardous waste generated during manufacturing are an inextricable and essential part of factory operations and cannot be treated as unrelated to manufacturing. It was observed that such activity is a statutory obligation and is attached to the manufacturing process, thereby falling squarely within the definition of an input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was held that the authorities erred in assuming the absence of a nexus with manufacture, as waste generation is a direct consequence of production. Accordingly, the disallowance of credit was held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Endurance Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order No. A/86104/2018, dated 20-3-2018 by CESTAT, Mumbai — Relied on [Paras 2, 4, 5]
- India Pesticides Ltd v. Commissioner — 2016 (43) S.T.R. 459 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 4, 5]
- Tube Investment India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017-TIOL-4129-CESTAT-MAD — Relied on [Paras 4, 5]
