9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is located in a remote location, the fact which is not in dispute. Hon ble Madras High Court in its decision dated 31.08.2017 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE VERSUS M/S. PRICOL, UNIT-I, COIMBATORE AND THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI [ 2017 (8) TMI 1467 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] while following the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision in case of CCE, NAGPUR VERSUS ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., [ 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the use of outdoor catering services in the factory has a nexus and integrally connected with the manufacture of final products and hence eligible for credit. The appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on outdoor catering - appeal allowed - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employee or a group of any employees but made available to all the workers in the factory. He submitted that the amended definition of input service , effective 01.04.2011, under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, restricts only the services which are for personal consumption which is not their case. He relied on plethora of judgements of this Tribunal and High Court as below, incl. the decisions rendered in their own case, where credit has been allowed:- CCE Udaipur vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd 2018 (9) GSTL 17 (Raj) CCE Hiran vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd 2018 (12) GSTL 31 (Raj.) CCE Ahmedabad vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj) Resil Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), it is observed that credit has been held to be not available on outdoor catering on the ground that food is always for personal consumption. I find that in the present facts of case, it cannot be said that the facility obtained for catering services is for a particular employee or group of employees but for all the employees working in the factory which is located in a remote location, the fact which is not in dispute. It has been observed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in appellant s own case, in Final Order no. 58117 of 2017, that the amended definition of input service restricts availment of credit on such service if it is for an employee and not employees . Further, it is also noted that the Tribunal in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruling of Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt Ltd vs. CCE Vadodara 2013 (291) ELT 70 (Tri-Ahm), this Tribunal observed that:- 10. At the first blush, I would have to agree with the submissions made by the Revenue authorities that the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Limited (supra) would be applicable in this case, as the identical facts were decided by the Larger Bench but on deeper consideration, I find that the reference to Larger Bench was made by me in the case of BDH Industries Limited, sitting singly, only on the ground that the appellant had taken suo motu credit of excess paid duty by double debit in PLA and the and credit was taken in RG 23A Part-II; notici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
