HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR AND R. KARUPPIAH, JJ.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Amrutanjan Ltd., Chennai & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 3236 of 2010
Decided On : 27-02-2015
Cenvat Credit - Outdoor Catering Services - Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB), 2010 -TIOL - 745 - HC- MUM - ST - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) - [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]
Fact of the Case:
The assessee availed Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services provided in the factory premises to its employees. The Department objected, stating that outdoor catering services do not fall within the ambit of the definition 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held in favor of the assessee, citing the decision of the Bombay High Court and the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court also rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the effect of a subsequent amendment to the rules.
Issues: The core issue was whether the assessee could utilize the cenvat credit facilities in respect of outdoor catering services provided in the factory for its employees as input service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as well as the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases to determine that the outdoor catering services were integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product, and thus qualified as input service.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee.
R. Sudhakar, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the assessee granting the benefit of Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on outdoor catering services provided in the factory for employees of the factory.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The assessee in this case availed Cenvat Credit facility on outdoor catering services provided in the factory premises to its employees and that was objected to by the Department stating that outdoor catering services do not fall within the ambit of definition 'input service', specified under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Department was of the view that catering/canteen services were neither used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of final product nor it could be said to be an activity relating to business and proceed to disallow the cenvat credit. The Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original, supported the view of the Department and disallowed the cenvat credit. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee pursued the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), who disallowed all the benefits of Cenvat credit, but allowed the benefit of cenvat credit in respect of outdoor catering service only. As against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department went before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V. GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB) dismissed the appeal holding that Cenvat credit is admissible on 'outdoor catering service' as the same is an input service relating to business.
4. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court.
5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The core issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessee can utilise the cenvat credit facilities in respect of outdoor catering services, provided in the factory for its employees, as input service.
7. In an identical circumstance, this Court dealt with the issue in a batch of appeals in C.M.A.Nos.2 of 2010 batch and vide judgment dated 13.02.2015 held in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE V. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 -TIOL - 745 - HC- MUM - ST, wherein all the contentions raised by the Revenue has been considered in extenso including the definition of 'input service' as defined in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. V. CCE reported in 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC). The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the decision of the Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of CCE V. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 468 is a correct law, however, with a rider that where the cost of the food is borne by the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax which is borne by the consumer.
8. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE V. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 -TIOL - 745 - HC- MUM - ST reads as follows:
"28. In the present case, the question is, whether outdoor catering services are covered under the inclusive part of the definition of "input service". The services covered under the inclusive part of the definition of input service are services which are rendered prior to the commencement of manufacturing activity (such as services for setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory) as well as services rendered after the manufacture of final products (such as advertisement, sales promotion, market research etc.) and includes services rendered in relation to business such as auditing, financing ... etc. Thus, the substantive part of the definition "input servi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.