CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Excise Appeal Nos. 42242 to 42245 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 37-40/2016 dated 22.07.2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), No. 1775, J.N. Road, Anna Nagar, [W] Extn., Chennai – 600 101)

M/s. GE T&D India Ltd. ...Appellant (Formerly known as Alston T&D India Ltd.), FSSC Building, 19/1, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, 2054/1, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M. Selvakumar, Authorised Representative CORAM:

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

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

FINAL ORDER Nos. 40193-40196 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 04.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 04.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO This Appeal is filed by M/s G.E.T& D Ltd, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’ for short) against the Orders-in-Appeal No 37-40/2016 dated 22.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) LTU, Chennai.

2.1 The Appellant is a manufacturer of electrical / transmission equipment. During audit of Accounts , the department noticed CENVAT credit taken on various services principally: (i) escort/security personnel deputed along with goods to customer sites; (ii) manpower for gardening; (iii) services of agencies for collection of C-Forms and payments; (iv) medical services for employees; (v) civil/works contract services (earth pits, manholes, STP, canteen/gas bunk renovation); (vi) servicing of canteen equipment / Sodexo meal pass booklets; (vii) transport-coordination services, etc.

2.2 Four Show Cause Notices were issued on the grounds of availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit. The period of dispute is April 2010 to March 2015. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Originals No 464-467/2015-ADC dated 30.10.2015 confirmed recovery of CENVAT credit (under Rule 14 CCR) with interest and imposed penalties under Rule 15 CCR. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after due process of Law rejected the Appeal.

2.3 Once again aggrieved, the Appellant challenges the Impugned Order before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Joseph Prabakar appeared on behalf of the Appellant and advanced detailed submissions in support of the Appeal and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar, appeared for the Revenue and defended the Impugned Order.

4. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Joseph Prabakar, appeared for the Appellant and made the following submissions which are summarized as below: -

4.1 The definition of “input service” (Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004) is wide and includes services used “in relation to the manufacture” and “activities relating to business”. Many of the services contested are integrally connected with manufacturing/clearance or are part of business activities and therefore eligible for credit.

4.2 Escort/security services and transport coordination are essential to deliver high-value, time-bound consignments to customers and these are outward transportation related up to place of removal and hence eligible.

4.3 Agencies engaged to collect C-Forms/payments are performing a commercial function necessary to achieve sale at concessional rate; such services are business-related and therefore eligible.

4.4 Medical services, canteen services, gardening, Sodexo cards, employee transport services are necessary business expenses; prior to 01.04.2011 the inclusive definition covered “activities relating to business”, and therefore credit is allowable for the pre-1.4.2011 period; where the Rule was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2011, prospective exclusion should be read narrowly.

4.5 Works/repair/renovation for canteen, STP, gas bunk etc. are maintenance/repair and not construction of building/foundation