1. Both these appeals were filed by the assessee aggrieved by denial of CENVAT credit by the lower appellate authority. In the first appeal, a part of the challenge is directed against denial of input duty credit amounting to Rs. 1,97,601/- for the period from November 2006 to October 2007. The credit was denied on certain inputs, the value of which was written-off on 31.3.2007 for income tax purposes. In this connection, the case of the appellant is that they were not liable to reverse the CENVAT credit on such inputs inasmuch as the requirement for such reversal of credit was introduced for the first time in the CENVAT Credit Rules by the Central Government by way of insertion of sub-rule (5B) in Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 11.5.2007 only. The argument is that, prior to 11.5.2007, there was no embargo on availment of CENVAT credit on written-off inputs. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Tribunal's decision in Phillips Electronics India Ltd. v. CCE 2011 (274) ELT 311 (Tri. -Mum.), wherein it was held that any CENVAT credit taken on any input written-off in financial account of the assessee prior to 11.5.2007 was not liable to be reversed. No binding decision to the contra has been cited before me. Therefore, the challenge against denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.1,97,601/- succeeds.

2. Another part of the challenge in the first appeal is against denial of CENVAT credit on certain activities which were not recognized by the lower authorities to be 'input services' under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The total credit denied by the authorities on this count is Rs.1,21,464/- as per the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. The services/activities in question are pest control, annual maintenance contract (AMC) for ST plant for sewage disposal, AMC for air conditioners for instrumentation room, canteen facility and AMC for computers. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following decisions in support of their claim of CENVAT credit on the aforesaid services:

(i) CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244/ (Kar.) (in respect of canteen facility);

(ii) VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2010 (262) ELT 749 (Tri-Bang.) (in respect of pest control);

(iii) Manikgarh Cement v. CCE [Final Order No. A/84.2011-WZB/C-IV (SMB), dated 22-12-2010] (in respect of AMC for air conditioners, ST plant for sewage disposal).

4. The learned Superintendent (AR) submitted that the appellant who employed only less than 250 employees in his manufacturing plant during the material period was not entitled to take CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service (canteen facility). He relied on Stanzen Toyotetsu (supra). However, he has not cited any decision in relation to the other services/activities. He reiterates the findings recorded by the original and appellate authorities. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel fairly concedes that the number of workers/employees was less than 250 during the material period. Nevertheless, it is his contention that the appellant was entitled to take CENVAT credit in respect of canteen facility irrespective of the number of employees/workers. These arguments have been made with reference to the definition of 'input service' given under Rule 2(i) ibid.

5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the claim of the appellant for CENVAT credit on pest control is supported by the Tribunal's decision in VST Industries Ltd. (supra) and the claim in respect of AMC for ST plant for sewage disposal is supported by the Tribunal's decision in Manikgarh Cement (supra). As regards the AMC for air conditioners for instrumentation room, the appellant has stated that these air conditioners were installed in their instrumentation room for the purpose of testing their products. This fact has not been rebutted in the impugned order and therefore I am constrained to hold that there is a nexus between the said service and the man