2015 (6) TMI 912 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of CENVAT credit - Outdoor Catering Service - Held that - Both the authority below allowed the credit following various decisions of the Tribunal. Revenue in their grounds of appeal stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) followed by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai V. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. - 2015 (6) TMI 83 - CESTAT CHENNAI . It is contended that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of GTC Industries (supra) does not appear to correct. In my considered view, the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal cannot make any observation on the correctness of the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In any event, I find force in the submission of the Learned Authorised Representative of the Revenue in respect of denial Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service, as per decision in the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise Nagpur V/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 83 - CESTAT CHENNAI . In that case, it has been held that the assessee is not eligible to avail the credit on the Outdoor Catering Service on the employees Share. - impugned order is modified to the extent the Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service is not admissible to respondent on the part of service tax borne by the worker. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Denial of input service credit on Outdoor Catering Service, Rent-a-cab service, and Travel Agent Service.

In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of input service credit to the respondent. The respondent was engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and availing Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated through show cause notices, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal. The issue revolved around the denial of input service credit on Outdoor Catering Service, Rent-a-cab service, and Travel Agent Service. Both lower authorities had allowed the credit based on Tribunal decisions. The Revenue contended that the decision of the Tribunal in a specific case did not seem correct. The Member found merit in the Revenue's argument concerning the denial of Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service, citing a relevant case law. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to declare that the Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service was not admissible to the respondent for the service tax borne by the worker. The appeal by the Revenue was disposed of accordingly.