2017 (4) TMI 1169 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - outdoor caterer - Whether the outdoor caterer providing refreshment to the employees of the appellants is eligible to be an input services used by the manufacturer, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products? - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of I.P.Rings Limited in C.M.A.No.3185 of 2010, where it was decided in favor of assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Questions of law framed for consideration - Eligibility of outdoor caterer services as input services - Cenvat Credit of service tax paid to outdoor caterer - Adherence to judicial propriety - Binding nature of decisions by Larger Bench on Tribunal.

Analysis:

Challenge to Tribunal's Final Order:
The appeal was filed under 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the final order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Court framed questions of law for consideration, including issues related to disagreement with Larger Bench views and eligibility of outdoor caterer services as input services.

Eligibility of Outdoor Caterer Services:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Flywheel Magneto Assembly, sought credit of Service Tax paid for outdoor caterer services provided to its employees. The Tribunal addressed this issue in a common order involving 13 appeals, including one by the appellant. Another Assessee's appeal, I.P.Rings Limited, led to a judgment in their favor by a Division Bench, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The judgment emphasized that the cost of food borne by the worker should not be considered for the purpose of granting service tax credit.

Adherence to Judicial Propriety:
The questions of law raised in the instant appeal were deemed identical to those in the I.P.Rings Limited case, with the merits of the matter being the focus. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that questions related to judicial propriety, while the Revenue's counsel highlighted the importance of adhering to decisions by Larger Benches on the same issue.

Binding Nature of Decisions by Larger Bench:
In light of the judgment in the I.P.Rings Limited case, where the Tribunal's order was set aside, questions related to merits were answered in favor of the Assessee. The principle of judicial discipline, as outlined by the Supreme Court, emphasized that orders of Appellate Authorities should be followed without reserve by subordinate authorities. Consequently, decisions by a Larger Bench would bind a bench of smaller strength on the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the connected pending application closed. The judgment underscored the importance of following decisions by Appellate Authorities and Larger Benches for maintaining judicial discipline and consistency in the interpretation and application of the law.