2009 (6) TMI 46 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit Input Services - garden maintenance service - outdoor catering service Held that cenvat credit on outdoor catering service is allowed - that there was not even a remote connection between garden maintenance and manufacture/clearance of the final product. This position was very plain like daylight to the assessee and therefore there was no reason for them to avail the undue benefit pending clarificatory decisions Cenvat credit on garden maintenance service disallowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service.
2. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellant could claim CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service. The judge referred to a previous case involving a similar issue, where it was held that garden maintenance service did not have any connection to the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. The judge concluded that the appellant was not entitled to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service due to the lack of nexus to the manufacturing process.

Issue 2: Entitlement to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service
The second issue revolved around the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service used for supplying food to factory workers. The judge cited a precedent where it was established that CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service could not be denied if the service was utilized for supplying food to a significant number of factory workers. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the benefit of the Larger Bench decision supporting the entitlement to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty
Regarding the imposition of a penalty on the appellant, the lower appellate authority had initially held that the appellant was not liable for penalty due to the interpretational nature of the case. However, a partial penalty was maintained. The appellant argued that no penalty should be imposed as there was no contravention of any provisions. The judge disagreed, emphasizing that the lack of connection between garden maintenance and the manufacturing process was evident and the appellant should have been aware of this. Therefore, the judge upheld the penalty imposed by the lower appellate authority, citing the appellant's failure to demonstrate a valid reason for claiming exoneration from penal liability.

In conclusion, the judge allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service while upholding the decision on other aspects of the case. The penalty sustained by the lower appellate authority was maintained due to the appellant's failure to justify their conduct regarding garden maintenance.