JUDGMENT

K.S. Jhaveri, J. —The appeals which are not admitted are admitted on following substantial questions of law:

Appeal NO. 22/2017

1. Whether, the learned CESTAT has erred by considering services namely; GTA (Outward transportation from depot to buyer''s place/premises) and auction services in respect of which the Assessee has availed the CENVAT credit of service tax, as eligible "Input Services" within the meaning of the definition of "Input Service" provided under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?

Appeal No. 23/2017

1. Whether, the learned CESTAT has erred by considering services namely; outdoor catering, GTA (outward transportation from factory to buyer''s place/premises) insurance services, rent a cab services and auction services in respect of which the Assessee has availed the CENVAT credit of service tax, as eligible "Input Services" within the meaning of the definition of "Input Service" provided under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?

Appeal No. 44/2015 admitted on 23.11.2016

1. Whether the impugned services namely outdoor Catering. Rent-a-cab, Auction, Club or Association and the GTA (outward freight upto buyer''s place/premises) in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit of service tax during the period from April 2010 to September 2011, are eligible ''input services'' within the meaning of ''input services'' defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit correctly or not?"

Appeal No. 49/2017 admitted on 06.07.2017

1. Whether the impugned services namely Outdoor Caterer of Factory Canteen, Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) Agent of Depot, Business Auxiliary Service of Depot and the GTA (outward transportation of cement) in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax during the period from January 2005 to July 2005, are eligible ''input service'' within the meaning of ''input service'' defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee had availed the Cenvat credit correctly or not?"

2. Since in all the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by this common judgment.

3. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4. Counsel appearing for the Department Mr. Ranka contended that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in reversing the finding arrived at by CIT (A) and original authority more particularly in view of decisions which are rendered by the Supreme Court where the issue is pending from judgments of different High Courts wherein the first issue is of outdoor catering where in a case of Commissioner v. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Appeal No. (Civil) No. CC 13065 of 2013, Dated 22.11.2013 wherein it has been held as under:-

"The Bombay High Court in its impugned order had held that the ratio of Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki case (2009) 240 ELT 641 (SC) , in the context of ''input'' is applicable for interpretation of expression ''activities relating to business'' in definition of input service. Providing canteen service to the workers is mandatory to assessee who is engaged in business of manufacture of cement failure entails penal consequences. Outdoor catering services were engaged in order to comply with Factories Act, 1948. Use of outdoor caterer''s services has nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final product in this case. Credit of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering services is admissible. Credit not admissible to manufacturer on part of Service Tax borne by worker and affidavit was filed by assessee on reversal of proportionate credit and embedded in the cost of food recover from employees. Credit reversal is supposed to be verified by the authorities. Definition of ''Input Services'' is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture but extends to all services direct nexus or integrally with business or manufacturing final pr