M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member. - All these four appeals are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. 132/2007, dated 17-12-2007; OIA Nos. 133 & 134/2007, dated 17-12-2007 & OIA No. 128/2007, dated 24-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. Since all these appeals are in respect of the same assessee and issue being the same, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant herein availed input stage credit of the service tax amount paid by the service provider of Canteen Services, Rent-a-Cab Services and on the Group Health Insurance Services. The appellant claims that the canteen services, transportation charges for transportation of their employees and the Group Insurance health Policy for which they have paid Service tax to the service providers, is in or in relation to the manufacturing activity. Both the lower authorities have held that the appellants are not eligible to avail the credit of Service tax paid by the Service provider and confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty besides directing the appellants to pay interest. Hence, these appeals.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that, the confirmation of the demand and Education Cess; directing to pay interest and imposing penalties, is irregular and incorrect. It is his submission that during the period December 2006 to March 2007, the appellant availed the services of outdoor catering services for providing food to their employees in the factory premises. It is his submission that the said services are provided to the employees who are part and parcel of the manufacturing activity. As regards the Service tax paid by the service provider for transportation of the employees, it is his submission that it is also in relation to the employees who are part and parcel of the manufacturing activity. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Victor Gaskets India Ltd. v. CCE [2008] 14 STT 403 (Mum. - CESTAT) and CCE v. Cable Corpn. of India Ltd. [2009] 19 STT 158 (Mum. - CESTAT) for these submissions.

4. The learned SDR would submit that the input stage credit on the outdoor catering services and transportation charges and group insurance policy can never be, by any stretch of imagination considered as input services. It is her submission that the assessee has provided these canteen services and transportation facilities and group insurance health policy as a welfare measure for its employees and in the background of effective management of the business. This cannot be equated that these activities are in or in relation to the manufacturing activity. She reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is undisputed that the appellant is a manufacturer and the canteen services and the transportation of the employees and group health insurance policy are all related to the employees who are working in the factory premises.

5.1 As regards the credit of Service tax paid by catering service provider, we find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. - CESTAT) has clearly held that the Service tax paid by the outdoor catering services is eligible for availment as an input stage credit. We may read the ratio :

"9. We have considered the submissions. We find that it is well settled that every clause of the statute should be construed with reference to the context in which it is issued. A bare mechanical interpretation of words and application of legislative intent is devoid of concept and purpose will reduce most of the remedial and beneficial legislations to futility. To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The Legislature never wastes its words or say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to legislation will not be a