9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainly not in dispute that said services prior to 1.4.2011 have been held to be covered by the definition of input service , however, after the amendment came into force in the light of specific exclusion clause, outdoor catering service is not at all covered under the definition of input service . A Taxing Statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed, it cannot imply anything which is not expressed, it cannot merge provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiencies - Appeal dismissed. - CEA NO.36/2018 C/W CEA NO.7/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY APPELLANT (COMMON) (BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR K.S, ADVOCATE A/W SRI.ANANDA, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT (COMMON) (BY SRI.ARAVIND V CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) JUDGMENT SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in all these two cases, they were heard analogously together and a common judgment is being passed. 2. The present appeals are arising out of the order dated 1.3.2018 passed by the CESTAT (Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... canteen facility and raised bills/invoices by charging applicable rate of service tax. The service being an eligible input service for the manufacturing, in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is availing the cenvat credit of the same and utilized the said credit towards duty payable on the final products manufactured by the appellant. The appellant has taken cenvat credit of service tax paid under the category of outdoor catering service since September 2004 till April 2011 i.e., till the amendment was made to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 7. The facts further reveal that during the period of April 2011 to September 2011 the appellant company had paid service tax of ₹ 37,53,952/- to the service provider i.e., Sodexho Food Solutions Private Limited, who rendered outdoor catering services to the appellant and the appellant took cenvat credit of service tax of ₹ 37,53,952/- as credit on input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant also reversed under protest the said credit availed on 14.3.2013 on account of certain objections raised by the department in respect of entitlement of credit. 8. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratap Spg. Wvg and Manufacturing Co.Ltd., reported in ?AIR 1935 Bom.415, 7. Commissioner of C.Ex., vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom), 8. State of Madras vs. G.J.Coelho, reported in 1964 (LIII) ITR 186 (SC), and 9. Sayaji Iron and Engg Co. vs. CIT, reported in 2002 (253) ITR 749 (Guj.). 12. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law; Whether the services received by the appellant in the capacity of employer for providing food and beverages in the canteen maintained and run in the factory as per the mandate of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 would be eligible for cenvat credit and it would be within scope of Input Services as per Section 37(2)(xviaa) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 94(2) of Finance Act, 1994? 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 14. In the present case the undisputed facts reveal that the orders passed by the authorities, appellate authority and the Tribunal are based upon the amendment which came into force from 1.4.2011. For deciding the controversy in the present case, the definition of input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee; Prior to 1.4.2011, the definition of input service stood thus: Rule 2(l) input service means any service, - (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal 15. The undisputed facts make it very clear that the period involved in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d judgment is distinguishable on facts as it was delivered in respect of a period prior to amendment. 18. Similarly, the other judgment relied upon in a case of Resil Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., (supra). Again it is a judgment involving pre amendment era. 19. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Solris Chemtech Ltd., (supra). This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and again the aforesaid judgment does not help the appellant in the light of specific amendment on the subject. 20. Another judgment over which reliance has been placed is in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahemedabad-1 vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd., (supra). The judgment is again distinguishable as it relates to period w.e.f., March 2006 to September 2006 i.e., period prior to amendment under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the considered opinion of this Court, the statutory definition of input service under Rule 2(l) post amendment w.e.f., 1.4.2011 provides that outdoor catering services falls under the exceptionary services in Rule 2(l)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, the Tribunal was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIR 1957 SC 664, p.666: 1957 SCR 1141; Gursahai v. CIT, AIR 1963 SC 1062, p.1064: (1963) 3 SCR 893; See further Banarsi Debi v. ITO, AIR 1964 SC 1742, p.1744: (1964) 7 SCR 539; CIT, Gujarat v. Vadilal Lallubhai, AIR 1973 SC 1016, p.1019: (1973) 3 SCC 17; Diwan Brothers v. Central Bank, Bombay, AIR 1976 SC 1503, p.1508: (1976) 3 SCC 800; McDowell Co.Ltd., v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1459, p.1465: (1977) 1 SCC 441; Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR 1997 SC 1165, p.1167: 1997(3) SCC 511; Hansraj Sons v. State of Jammu Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 2692, pp.2698, 2699: (2002) 6 SCC 227; Geo Miller Co. (P) Ltd., v. State of M.P., (2004) 5 SCC 209, p.216 (para30): AIR 2004 SC 3552.] 23. Resultantly, this Court has to look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. A Taxing Statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed, it cannot imply anything which is not expressed, it cannot merge provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiencies. 24. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The question of law is answered in favour of the revenue an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
