2018 (11) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input/input service/capital goods - Department entertained a view that appellants are not eligible to avail credit in respect of the said outdoor catering services - Held that - In view of the conflicting decisions during the relevant time, it was finally settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. CCE 2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE . As per the Larger Bench, the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services - there is no infirmity in the impugned order, which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post-amendment dated 1.4.2011.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 post-amendment dated 1.4.2011. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing multi-utility vehicles and passenger cars, availed input service tax credit related to outdoor catering services during April 2013 to September 2013. The Department contended that the appellants were not entitled to credit for such services primarily used for personal consumption of employees. A show-cause notice was issued, and the appellants paid the demanded amount, leading to confirmation of recovery by the original authority. The appeal before the Commissioner (A) was rejected, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability as it failed to consider the facts and the law, asserting that outdoor catering services were essential under the Factories Act. Conversely, the Assistant Commissioner (AR) referenced a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. CCE, where it was established that CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services was not permissible.

After evaluating the submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Larger Bench's decision, which clarified the definition of 'input service' post and pre-amendment dated 1.4.2011. The post-amendment definition specifically excluded services related to outdoor catering. The Tribunal emphasized that legislative intent should not be defeated by interpretations contrary to the exclusion clause's purpose. It highlighted the Finance Minister's Budget Speech and a clarification by the Joint Secretary (TRU) to support the legislative changes. The Tribunal concluded that outdoor catering services were not eligible for input service credit post-amendment dated 1.4.2011, in line with the Larger Bench's decision.

Therefore, based on the Larger Bench's ruling and the legislative intent behind the amendment, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appellant's appeal on the grounds that outdoor catering services did not qualify for CENVAT credit post-amendment dated 1.4.2011.