9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 347 - AT - Service TaxOutdoor catering service- The appeal involves a very short issue viz. eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, has held that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward catering service, relying on the decision in the case of M/s. GTC Industries. Held that-no infirmity in impugned order holding assessee eligible for credit.
Issues:
Eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved the eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the Cenvat credit based on a previous decision and noting the absence of any allegation of suppression to invoke an extended period. The issue revolved around whether the cost of catering services was included in the assessable value of the final product. The learned SDR argued that there was no evidence to support this inclusion, while the advocate for the respondent presented balance sheets, annual reports, and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant to demonstrate the incorporation of catering service costs in the final product's value. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the advocate and decided against remanding the matter. The advocate acknowledged that if it was found that the value of outdoor catering service was not included in the final product, the department could invoke an extended period for fresh demands. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the extended time limit, noting the absence of suppression of fact in the show cause notice and the existence of differing views referred to the Larger Bench for resolution. It was established that in cases where two views were possible, the extended period could not be invoked. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The cross objection was also disposed of accordingly. The decision was pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
