HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ NiJ Appellant Tax Case No. 43 of 2010 Union of India through Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Central Excise Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikarapara, Raipur (CG) 492 001. Vs. Respondent ^ {.- M/s. HEG Ltd., (Sponge Iron Division) Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Durg (CG). (Appeal underSection 35-G ofCentral ExciseAct, 1944)) Present: Shri Bhishm Kinger, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Virendra Sharma, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER \ (Passedon 7-10-2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-6-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi and the revenue has preferred this appeal on the following substantial question oflaw: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in interpreting the term "input services" as snumerated in Rule 2 (1) ofthe CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and allowing the CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on Pandal & Shamyana Services and Insurance Services for discharging their duty liability, even if, they are not at all or remotely connected with the generation of Egi^SSS^SSss' ^^ —^^^ • • 't ---.—..gj? "'.'^"f^' -aiBseS'" ff £' 2. steam or electricity or manufacture df final products?" The Tribunal has allowed CENVAT credit oninput services namely Landline Telephones, Cleaning and Maintenance of Garden, PandalSamiyana Services and Group insuranceto the employees with a finding of fact that there is no allegation that landline telephones were used in relation to business activities and the credit has been denied only on the ground that the telephones were installed in the residences of the staff which is not justified. Similarly, credit has been allowed as Pandal and Shamyana services were rendered in certain exigencies of the business. However, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to clearning and maintenance of garden has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the credit on clearning and gardening services if the same is found in relation to the business activities after due verification. With respect to exigency of Gr&up Insurance Services, the credit was allowed relying upon the decisionsof the Tribunal at Mumbai and Bangalore in this regard, holding denial of credit on group insurance by the Commissioner (Appeal) unjustified. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Input service has been defined under Rule 2 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 which reads as under. "Rule 2(1) "Input service" means any service:- (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufactureof final products and (clearance of final products upto the place of removal,) and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernizafion, renovation or repairs of a factory premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation uptothe place ofremoval." 6. Thus, from the aforesaid definition of input services, it is clear that the definition is exhaustive which includes services mentioned in the definition as also the other services. The question whether a particular service availed by the assessee is input service, is a question of fact which is to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case. It is a settled law that the Tribunal is a final authority on fact. The Tribunal has already decided the above issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, in our opinion, the question on which the appeal has been admitted is a question of fact which has been finally decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 7. . On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any substancde in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. '>... Sd/- DhirendraMisbra Judge Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju