9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted by the Larger Bench cannot be appreciated inasmuch as it is the ratio of the law declared by the Larger Bench which is applicable and not the reasoning. Apart from above, I also find that the Larger Bench held that the outdoor catering service is an input service irrespective of the fact that a subsidised food is provided or not or whether the cost of the food is given by the worker or by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order of Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that he has not followed the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Vs. GTC Industries Ltd.- 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB) by observing that the reasons for holding the outdoor catering services as input service in the said decision was that the assessee in that case, having more workers than 250, was under a statutory obligation to provide canteen s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e worker or by the factory. 4. The issue is also decided by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) and by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. ACE Designers Ltd. - 2012 (26) STR 193 (Kar.) 5. In fact in the same appellant s case Tribunal by following the above decisions held in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
