2009 (6) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tified on 1.7.2009 in Appeal No. E/575/2008-Mum.) Ms. Padmavati Patil, Adv. for Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for Respondent Per P.G. Chacko: There are two issues arising for consideration in this appeal of the assessee, (a) whether they are entitled to avail CENVAT credit on garden maintenance service for the period of dispute and (b) whether they are entitled to take similar benefit in r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... workers, I find that case law is consistently in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal's Larger Bench held, in the case of CCE, Mumbai-V vs. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (89) RLT 197 (CESTAT-LB) = 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri-LB), that CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service could not be denied to a manufacturer who utilised such service for supply of food to the factory workers numbering not less than 25 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e final product. This position was very plain, like daylight, to the assessee and, therefore, there was no reason for them to avail the undue benefit pending clarificatory decisions. Therefore, insofar as the conduct of the appellant in relation to garden maintenance is concerned, I do not think that the appellant can claim exoneration from penal liability. The penalty sustained by the lower appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X