9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employees. Hence, when there is a clear finding of the Commissioner in his Order in Original that these services were actually consumed by the employees of the assessee, the question of the Tribunal recording a finding does not arise. Also a notification issued in Notification No.3/2011 dated 1.3.2011 excluding the outdoor catering services came into effect on 1.4.2011 but here the period relates to a period prior to 1.4.2011. Therefore, the Tribunal's order is correct. - Decided against the revenue - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 157 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - V. Ramasubramanian And N. Kirubakaran, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran JUDGMENT Judgment Was Delivered By V. Ramasubramanian, J. The Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue is on appeal. 6. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court : (i) Whether the Tribunal was corect in holding that the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit on 'outdoor catering services' provided to the employees of the factory as an input service credit and allowing the assessee's appeal despite the fact that outdoor catering service does not fall under the ambit of the definition of 'input service' specified under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and in as much as the catering services are neither used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of final product nor can it be said to be an activity relating to business ? (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. Even in the Order in Original, the Commissioner did not dispute the fact that the outdoor catering services were rendered to persons engaged by the assessee in or in relation to their business activities. On the contrary, the Commissioner, in paragraph 13.2 of his Order in Original, recorded a finding that the services of outdoor catering involved mere subsidisation of food consumed in the canteen by the employees and therefore, it was in the nature of perquisites enjoyed by the employees. Hence, when there is a clear finding of the Commissioner in his Order in Original that these services were actually consumed by the employees of the assessee, the question of the Tribunal recording a finding does not arise. 11. Though a notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
