9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 942 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering services - period January 2010 to August 2010 - demand alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - From the periods involved in both the Show Cause Notices, it is seen that only one month from 1.4.2011 to 30.4.2011 pertains to the period after the amendment in the definition of input services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX 2021 (12) TMI 420 - SC ORDER has held that after 1.4.2011, the assessee cannot avail credit on outdoor catering services. Following the same, credit availed for the period 1.4.2011 to 30.4.2011 which is part of the Show Cause Notice dated 12.9.2011 is not eligible for credit. For the remaining period i.e. from January 2010 to August 2010 as well as from September 2010 to March 2011, the credit will be eligible as the definition of input service prior to 1.4.2011 included such services - Following the decisions in the cases of M/S. SHARDA MOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX 2019 (7) TMI 253 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/S. CHENNAI CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CE, CHENNAI 2021 (8) TMI 900 - CESTAT CHENNAI , it is held that the credit on outdoor catering services for these periods is eligible. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services for the period January 2010 to April 2011. Analysis: The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of women's inner garments, availed CENVAT credit on taxes paid for various input services, including outdoor catering services. The Central Excise Department issued Show Cause Notices proposing to disallow the credit availed on outdoor catering services for the period January 2010 to August 2010 and September 2010 to April 2011. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties but confirmed the demands, leading to the appellant approaching the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the major period falls before 1.4.2011, pre-amendment to the definition of 'input service.' He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax to support the contention that post 1.4.2011, the appellant is not eligible for credit. Referring to precedents like M/s. Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. and Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., the counsel contended that credit on outdoor catering services before 1.4.2011 is legitimate. The Tribunal noted that only the period from 1.4.2011 to 30.4.2011 falls after the amendment to the definition of input services. Following the Supreme Court's decision, credit for this period was deemed ineligible. However, for the remaining periods (January 2010 to August 2010 and September 2010 to March 2011), the Tribunal held that credit on outdoor catering services is permissible as per the definition of input service pre-amendment. Relying on the precedents cited, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing credit for the eligible periods and disallowing it for the specified post-amendment period. The appeal was partly allowed accordingly, with consequential relief granted if applicable.
|
