2022 (3) TMI 1102 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering services - period from March 2016 to June 2017 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue stands covered by the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. WIPRO LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-III. 2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was held that The outdoor catering service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 1.4.2011 vide N/N. 3/2011 dated 18.3.2011. Time limitation - HELD THAT - As seen from the narration of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, it is clear that the issue is interpretational in nature and there were conflicting decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal after which the matter was referred to Larger Bench. Taking these aspects into consideration, it cannot be said that appellant has wilfully suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke the extended period. The entire demand is raised by invoking extended period - invocation of extended period cannot sustain and the demand is time-barred. The appeal is allowed on limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellants are eligible to avail cenvat credit on outdoor catering services for the period from March 2016 to June 2017.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of cenvat credit on outdoor catering services
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, provided canteen facilities to employees through third-party caterers. The Department contended that cenvat credit on outdoor catering services was not eligible due to an amendment in Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. The appellant argued that the services were integral to manufacturing as per statutory requirements and relied on precedents like Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. The appellant also highlighted the compliance with the Factories Act and Rules. The Department relied on the Wipro Ltd. case, where post-2011 credit on outdoor catering services was deemed ineligible. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing legislative intent and exclusion clauses. The appellant's argument on limitation was accepted, considering conflicting tribunal decisions and the interpretational nature of the issue. The demand was deemed time-barred, and the impugned order was set aside on this ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, with consequential relief, based on the interpretational nature of the issue and conflicting tribunal decisions. The appellant's eligibility for cenvat credit on outdoor catering services was denied following the Wipro Ltd. case, which deemed such credit ineligible post-2011 due to exclusion clauses.