Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Paramount Communication Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 3 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 3.4.2014
No. E/Stay/50910/2014 and E/50784/2014-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 186/VC/JPR-I/2013 dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s Paramount Communication Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Devender Singh, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51443/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availability of credit of service tax paid on the outdoor catering service availed by the appellant in their factory canteen for the purpose of providing food to their employees. The impugned orders stands passed in de novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal.
2. From the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that he has not followed the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Vs. GTC Industries Ltd.- 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB) by observing that the reasons for holding the outdoor catering services as input service in the said decision was that the assessee in that case, having more workers than 250, was under a statutory obligation to provide canteen services. He has further held that whereas in the present case number of employees is less than 250 the appellant is under no statutory legal obligation to provide canteen services.
3. I have also seen the said Larger Bench decision, though it is a fact that number of workers was one of the criteria for the Larger Bench to hold the services as input services but to make a distinction on the basis of reasoning adopted by the Larger Bench cannot be appreciated inasmuch as it is the ratio of the law declared by the Larger Bench which is applicable and not the reasoning. Apart from above, I also find that the Larger Bench held that the outdoor catering service is an input service irrespective of the fact that a subsidised food is provided or not or whether the cost of the food is given by the worker or by the factory.
4. The issue is also decided by the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.) and by the Honble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. ACE Designers Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 193 (Kar.)
5. In fact in the same appellants case Tribunal by following the above decisions held in favour of assessee and allowed their appeal reported as Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (287) ELT 70 (Tri.-Del.). By following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 1