Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Maihar Cement Unit No. 2 vs Cce & St, Bhopal on 1 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER
Date of Hearing/Order: 01/09/2015
Appeal No. E/55504/2014-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BPL-CXCUS-000-APP-075-14-15 dated 14/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal (M.P.)]
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 Maihar Cement Unit No. 2 Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri B.B. Sharma, DR Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 52729/2015 Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The appeal is filed challenging the disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering services for the period of October, 2009 to March, 2011.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants own case in Final Order No. A/56561/2013-SM(BR) dated 16/05/2013 where it was held that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit on Outdoor Catering services as the appellant operates a factory which has more than 250 employees. Under the Factory Act, it is incumbent is upon the appellant to provide canteen facility to the workers. Therefore the Outdoor Catering services availed is integrally related to the manufacturing activity carried out by appellant. The issue is covered by catena of decisions in which it is held that Outdoor Catering services are eligible for Cenvat Credit. Moreover in the appellants own case for early period the credit was allowed. In view of above, there is no justification in denying the credit to appellant.
3. Resultantly, the impugned order is set-aside. The appeal is allowed with consequentially reliefs if any.
(Pronounced in the open Court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) K. Gupta 2