9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 268 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering services - HELD THAT - The issue of availment of CENVAT credit prior to 01.04.2011 and post 01.04.2011 has been addressed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. WIPRO LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-III. 2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE . In para 7.1 of the said order, it was noted by the Larger Bench that admittedly such services prior to 01.04.2011 have been held to be covered by the definition of input service - For the post amendment period, it was held that such outdoor catering service is not eligible for input service credit. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services, imposition of interest and penalty. Analysis: The case involved the denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services and the imposition of interest and penalty on the appellant. The appellant, a consulting engineering company, had availed credit for outdoor catering services for the period April 2007 to March 2011. The department observed the credit as inadmissible, leading to a duty demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant contested this before the forum, arguing that such credit had been allowed before the introduction of an exclusion clause in April 2011. They cited case laws to support their claim and challenged the Commissioner's observation regarding the recovery of the amount. The appellant also contended that the demand was time-barred. During the hearing, the Authorized Representative for the department supported the Commissioner's order, referencing judicial decisions to argue that canteen facilities or welfare activities are not covered under the definition of "input service." The representative highlighted the Commissioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE, emphasizing the exhaustive enumeration of the scope of "input" in the CENVAT Credit Rules. After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Member (Judicial) referred to a Larger Bench Tribunal decision regarding the availment of CENVAT credit before and after the amendment in April 2011. The Larger Bench had noted that services prior to April 2011 were considered "input services," but certain services were excluded from credit post-amendment. Following the Larger Bench's findings, the Member concluded that the appellant was eligible to avail of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services for the period in dispute (April 2007 to March 2011). Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside. In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services, considering the period before and after the April 2011 amendment. The Member relied on the precedent set by a Larger Bench Tribunal decision to determine the eligibility of the appellant for availing the credit. The decision highlighted the legislative exclusion of certain services post-amendment and concluded in favor of the appellant based on the findings of the Larger Bench.
|
