Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Welspun India Ltd vs C.C.E.& S.T., Vapi on 15 March, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.11416, 11417 of 2014-SM Arising out of order-in-appeal No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP 293-13-14 dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman. Welspun India Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E.& S.T., Vapi .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate for the appellant Present Ms. Nitina Nagori, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 15.3.2017 Final Order No. Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. These appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. DMN-EXCUS-000-APP 293-13-14 dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.2,89,912/- and Rs.4,92,483/- during the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. Alleging that outdoor catering service (canteen service) is not an input service , demand notices were issued for recovery of the credit along with interest and proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty of equal amount imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals and hence, the present appeals.
3. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, ld.Advocate for the appellant submits that on principle, now CENVAT credit of outdoor catering service (canteen service) is held to be admissible in view of judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) and of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of C.C.E., Ahmedabad I vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj.) Further, he submits that the appellant had not recovered any amount in providing canteen services to their employees and food coupons were given to their employees free of cost. It is his contention that the CENVAT credit is accordingly admissible even on the 50% of the amount alleged to have been recovered by the appellant from their employees.
4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I find that on principle , the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outdoor catering service (canteen service) to the employees is eligible to CENVAT credit in view of the aforesaid decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in Ferromatik Milacron India Ltds case(supra). However, the demand notices were issued to the appellant alleging that approximately 50% of the value of the said service has been recovered from their employees in providing the outdoor catering service (canteen service). The contention of the Advocate for the appellants on the other hand is that the canteen service has been provided free of cost to their employees by distributing food coupons. The appellant had not recovered any amount from their employees in providing outdoor catering service (canteen service). In my view, such categorical claim of the appellant needs to be scrutinized on the basis of evidences on record and the evidences that would be placed by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. In the result, for the limited purpose of verification of the said fact the matter is remitted to the Adjudicating authority. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) scd/ Appeal No.E/11416, 11417/2014-SM 1