CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Excise Appeal Nos. 40527 to 40529 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 461/2017(CTA-I) dated 12.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-I), No. 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034)

M/s. Cetex Petrochemical Ltd. ...Appellant Manali, Chennai – 600 068.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Chennai North Commissionerate, No. 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. V. Ravindran, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER Nos. 40292-40294 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 29.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The Appellant, M/s. CETEX Petrochemicals Ltd., Chennai is engaged in the manufacture of Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) and Secondary Butyl Alcohol (SBA), classifiable under Chapter Headings 29141200 and 29051490 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and is duly registered under the Central Excise law. The Appellant has been availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

1.2 During March 2014 to March 2015, the Appellant availed CENVAT credit on various input services. The Department issued three Show Cause Notices alleging that certain credits were inadmissible under amended Rule 2(l) w.e.f. 01.04.2011, proposing disallowance aggregating to ₹67,77,421/-, which were adjudicated through the Orders-

in-Original indicated in the table below.

1.3 On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide common Order-in-Appeal No. 461/2017 dated 12.12.2017, held several services to be eligible but allowed credit subject to verification, while denying credit on pest control, gardening/cleaning, civil works, cab/logistics, housekeeping manpower and membership services.

1.4 Aggrieved by the partial denial and conditional directions, which in substance amounts to remanding the issue back for verification despite findings on eligibility, the Appellant has filed the present three appeals before this Tribunal as detailed in the below table: -

2. The Ld. Advocate Mr. V. Ravindran, appeared for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms.

Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, appeared for the Revenue.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that: -

i. The definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l), even after amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011, continues to cover all services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture, as well as services having a nexus with business operations.

ii. All disputed services were used either:

a. for operation, maintenance and safety of a major petrochemical plant, which is hazard prone.

b. to comply with statutory mandates under Factories Act, Pollution Control norms, Insurance laws, or c. for logistics, utilities, utilities control, quality testing, and expansion of existing facilities.

iii. The lower authorities rejected credits mechanically by repeatedly stating “relation to manufacture not proved” without analysing technical write-ups, invoices, Chartered Accountant certificates dated 01.01.2015 and 20.08.2015, or the nature of petrochemical manufacturing.

iv. It is further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals), after holding services to be eligible, could not remand or direct verification, as powers of remand were withdrawn under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MIL India Ltd. [2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC)].

v. Strong reliance was placed on Final Order of this Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case wherein identical services were held eligible even post-01.04.2011.

vi. Penalties are wholly unsustainable since the issue is interpretational, credits were disclosed in returns, and substantial reversals were made voluntarily