9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Dahiya, Employee, for the Respondent. [Order]. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the outdoor catering service availed by the respondent is covered by the definition of input service and whether they are eligible for Cenvat credit of the Service tax paid on the outdoor catering service received by them. The original Adjudicating Authority decided this issue against the respondent, but on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order-in-appeal No. 221-222/ST/MRT-II/2009, dated 31-7-09 set aside this order of the original Adjudicating Authority and allowed the Cenvat credit, in respect of outdoor catering service by holding the same to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the product and that the service of outdoor catering provided to workers has no nexus with the manufacture of the final product, that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) while holding that the outdoor catering service being an activity relating to business is covered by the definition of input service has not considered the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra), that Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pieco Electronics and Eleclrieals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incomc-Tax reported in [1993] 201 ITR 477 (Cal.) in para 13 of the judgment has held that even if a factory has to maintain a canteen, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation so as to permit Cenvat credit in respect of services which are not in or in relation to manufacture of the final products, that all the business activity need not be related to the manufacturing business, that even if the expenses incurred on running and maintenance of the canteen are part of the price of the final product, it does not mean that the outdoor catering service should be treated as an input service for the purpose of permitting the Cenvat credit, that the only criteria for treating a service as input service is as to whether the same has nexus with the manufacture and since the outdoor service has no nexus with the manufacture, the Cenvat credit cannot be allowed. 2.2 Shri Sanjeev Dahiya, an employee of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has given a finding that maintaining a canteen for the workers is a requirement under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factory s Act, 1948 if the factory is employing more than 250 employees. In this case it is not under dispute under the provisions of Factory s Act are applicable. It is on this basis that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) has held that maintaining canteen for the workers of the factory being requirement under the provisions of the Factory s Act has to be held to be an activity relating to manufacturing business. I find that in this case Hon ble Court also considered the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) while interpreting the scope of input service . Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), we hold that the services having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. 35. The argument of the Revenue, that the expression such as in the definition of input service is exhaustive and is restricted to the services named therein, is also devoid of any merit, because, the substantive part of the definition of input service as well as the inclusive part of the definition of input service purport to cover no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Pieco Electronics and Elcctricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) cited by the learned Departmental Representative is on the issue as to whether the equipment installed in the canteen of the factory would be eligible for investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The issue in this case - whether the outdoor catering service received by the respondent can be treated as input service has to be examined in the light of definition of input service as given in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, hence, this judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. As regards, the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
