9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ", the same has to be given due effect to. In the present case the outdoor catering service is used in relation to business activities of the Appellant and the service is used by all employees in general. Also, the Revenue has not rebutted the contention of the Appellant, that the costs of these input services form part of the cost of final product. I also find that the services covered in clause (B) of the definition are excluded from the ambit of cenvat credit without any such qualification of use of service for personal or official purpose. - even the Government while issuing the budget clarification or subsequent circular has clarified that what is not eligible is that service which is meant for personal use or consumption by an employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case outdoor catering service is used by the Appellant in relation to carrying out the business of manufacturing excisable goods. It is further submitted that credit is claimed only to the extent the cost of such expenses is borne by the Company, and not recovered from the employees. 2.2 The Ld. Counsel relies on the TRU circular D.O.F.No.334/3/2011-TRU dated 28 February 2011 issued at the time of introduction of the said amendment, wherein it is stated as under: "9. On the same lines, a service meant primarily for the personal use or consumption of employees will not constitute an input service. A list of specific services has also been given by way of example in the definition. Most of these services constitute a part of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready implicit. He submits that as per the pre-amendment definition of input service the 'activities relating to business' were eligible for credit, and hence a specific exclusion for service used for personal use or consumption was not required, but it conveyed the same meaning that all the services used for business continue to be eligible for credit unless excluded specifically. 2.6 The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in support of their claim for credit: a. CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. ACE Designers Ltd. reported in 2011 TIOL- 931 -HC-KAR- CX b . CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL-866-HC-KAR-ST 2.7 Further, Ld. Counsel relied on de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit without any such qualification of use of service for personal or official purpose. 4.2 I further find that even the Government while issuing the budget clarification or subsequent circular has clarified that what is not eligible is that service which is meant for personal use or consumption by an employee or the cost of which is included as part of salary of the employee as a cost to company basis. In the present case, the cost of such services, are admittedly borne by the company and not by the employee. Therefore, I hold that the Appellant has correctly claimed the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
