9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided in Clause (c) of Rule 2(l) - appellants are not entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on Group Medical Insurance Service. Catering Service - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. WIPRO LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-III. [2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal after considering the exclusion clause provided in Clause (c) w.e.f. 01.04.2011 has held that Outdoor Catering Service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, credit on Catering Service rightly denied. Transportation of Employees - HELD THAT:- This falls under the definition of input service as it is directly related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat credit on certain input services viz. Garden Maintenance Charges, Waste Hauling, Renovation of Kitchen, Food Analysis, Painting Cost, Event Management and Creche Maintenance and Staff Welfare and rejected the cenvat credit on (a) Group Medical Insurance amounting to ₹ 33,97,796/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Six only) (b) Staff Transport facility ₹ 2,25,853/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only) and (c) Lunch and Banquet ₹ 74,582/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Two only). The appellants have filed the present appeal against the rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Nine only) under Section 76 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide common order dated 14/02/2019 confirmed the demand of ₹ 36,98,231/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty One only) and dropped the demand amounting to ₹ 5,82,061/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Sixty One only). Demand for interest under Section 75 and penalty of ₹ 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable only to such services consumed for personal consumption of the employees. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned services do not fall under the definition of input service . The learned AR further submitted that as far as Catering Service is concerned, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1111 after considering the exclusion clause provided in Clause (c) w.e.f. 01.04.2011 has held that Outdoor Catering Service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 01.04.2011. As far as Group Medical Service is concerned, the learned AR submitted that this Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exclusion clause provided in Clause (c) w.e.f. 01.04.2011 has held that Outdoor Catering Service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, I hold that Commissioner has rightly denied the credit on Catering Service. As far as cenvat credit on Transportation of Employees is concerned, I find that this falls under the definition of input service as it is directly related to the productivity of the employees working with the appellant and this facility is only from the factory to the residence of the employees and back which in my opinion falls in the definition of input service and the exclusion clause is not applicable as far as this service is concerned. Therefore, by relying upon the ratios o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
