2018 (5) TMI 1340 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - Outdoor Catering Service - penalty - Held that - The appellants is not entitled to cenvat credit on Outdoor Catering Services. Penalty - Held that - in view of the conflicting decisions during the relevant time and since the issue was relating to interpretation of Rule 2(I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the penalty is not imposable. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of Outdoor Catering Services for input service credit.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the demand of irregularly availed credit on Outdoor Catering Services. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles, provided Outdoor Catering to workers as per the Factories Act. The revenue contended that Outdoor Catering Services did not qualify as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, leading to a show-cause notice, confirmed liability, and penalty imposition. The appellant argued that Outdoor Catering Services were essential under the Factories Act, thus eligible for input service credit. The AR cited a Larger Bench decision post-amendment, stating Outdoor Catering Services were not eligible for credit. The appellant sought penalty waiver due to conflicting decisions and lack of malafide intent. The tribunal, considering conflicting decisions, ruled in line with the Larger Bench decision, denying credit for Outdoor Catering Services. The penalty was dropped due to the interpretational nature of the issue and absence of suppression allegations, partially allowing the appeal.

2. The issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was examined. The appellant argued against the penalty, citing conflicting decisions during the relevant period and a genuine belief in availing credit on Outdoor Catering Services. The AR supported the impugned order's findings. The tribunal, after reviewing both parties' submissions, concluded that due to conflicting decisions and the recent Larger Bench ruling, the penalty was not warranted. Notably, there were no allegations of suppression or malafide intent by the appellant, leading to the penalty being dropped. The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the interpretational aspect of the rule and the absence of intent to evade duty payment.