2016 (8) TMI 35 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - input service - out-door catering services - Held that - In the instant case, as per Factories Act, 1948, the appellants are compelled to provide food facilities inside the factory. It is more importantly used by the appellant to comply with the mandatory requirement under Factories Act. If they do not comply with such provision of the Factories Act, the appellants will definitely not be able to engage in the production / manufacture of final products. Therefore outdoor catering services are used by appellant in relation to the business of manufacture and not for any personal use or consumption of employee. - Credit allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services under the definition of 'input service' post-amendment effective from 01/04/2011.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services by the appellants, who are manufacturers of aerated waters. The department contended that post-amendment to the definition of 'input service' from 01/04/2011, outdoor catering services are excluded and therefore credit is not admissible. The original authority confirmed the demand, imposing a penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the decision, leading the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.

The counsel for the appellant argued that outdoor catering services were provided within the factory premises to comply with the statutory requirement of the Factories Act, 1948, and not primarily for personal use or consumption of employees. The appellant emphasized the impact on production due to the location of the unit 15 kms away from the city and the necessity of providing food facilities to employees and laborers. The counsel cited precedents such as the Tribunal's decision in Yazaki Wiring Technologies India Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE, Chennai-III and CST, Mumbai vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. to support their case.

On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated that outdoor catering services are explicitly mentioned in the exclusion part of the definition of 'input service', thereby disqualifying them as input services. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides and analyzed the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also referred to Circular No.334/3/2011-TRU, which clarified that services primarily for personal use or consumption of employees do not constitute input services.

After thorough deliberation, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, holding that the disallowance of credit on outdoor catering services was not justified. The Tribunal highlighted that the services were crucial for compliance with the Factories Act, 1948, and were essential for the manufacturing process, rather than being primarily for personal use or consumption of employees. Citing previous decisions and legal definitions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any.