2012 (5) TMI 292 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Outdoor catering - input services - Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules(CCR), 2004 Held that - they had a statutory obligation under the Factories Act to provide canteen facility to their employees. original authority did not have occasion to verify the strength of employees in the respondent s factory as it proceeded on the premise that outdoor catering service was not covered by the definition of input service . Though the appellate authority held the service to be a input service, it did not advert to the statutory obligation, if any, of the respondent under the Finance Act. These are the circumstances which warrant remand of the case to the original authority. appeal and cross-objection are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether outdoor catering service provided to employees through a canteen facility qualifies as an 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
2. Whether the demand of duty is time-barred.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal concerns the classification of outdoor catering services provided to employees through a canteen facility as an 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Assistant Commissioner denied the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent on these services, leading to a demand for recovery, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal based on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in a similar case. The Department contested this decision, citing a different High Court decision and questioning the statutory obligation of the respondent to provide the service to employees. The Tribunal noted the statutory obligation under the Factories Act for the respondent to provide the canteen facility and remanded the case to verify if the respondent met the condition. The Tribunal emphasized that if the statutory obligation is fulfilled, the outdoor catering service can be considered an 'input service' eligible for CENVAT credit, aligning with previous court decisions supporting the same interpretation.

Issue 2:
Additionally, the respondent raised a cross-objection asserting that the demand of duty is time-barred. The Tribunal acknowledged this submission, highlighting the need for the original authority to reevaluate both the substantive issue of 'input service' classification and the limitation issue in compliance with legal principles and natural justice. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal and cross-objection were allowed by way of remand, directing a fresh decision on the issues at hand.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the legal complexities and interpretations surrounding the classification of outdoor catering services as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, as well as the consideration of the limitation aspect in the case.