Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Symrise Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 28 February, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/675/2010
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 06/2010 dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Mr. M. VEERAIYAN, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? __________________________________________________________
M/s. Symrise Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chennai Respondents
Appearance Shri V.S. Manoj, Adv., for the appellants Shri K. Balasubramanian, JDR, for the respondents CORAM Mr. M. VEERAIYAN, Technical Member Date of hearing : 28.02.2011 Date of decision : 28.02.2011 ORDER No._____________ Per: M. Veeraiyan, This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 06/2010 dated 09.07.2010, by which a demand of Rs. 40,490/- has been made after denying cenvat credit on Outdoor Catering Services along with interest. The Commissioner (A) has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings & Others Vs. CCE, Chennai 2010 (19) STR 172 (Tri.-Chen.).
2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue is squarely governed by the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. & Others reported in 10-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST.
3. Ld. DR submits that the order of the in the case of M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings & Others Tribunal has been appealed by the party and the matter is before the Honble High Court of Madras.
4.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (cited supra) considered the specific issue of whether outdoor catering service can be held to be an input service when Factories Act mandates providing of canteen facilities when the number of workers employed in the factory was more than 250 and held that providing of outdoor catering service should be treated, in such a situation, as input service and extended the credit.
4.2 In the present case, from the records it is not clear as to the number of employees employed by the appellants. Ld. Advocate for the appellants claims that they employ more than 300 workers and since the focus of dispute was different, this claim was not made before the authorities below.
5. In view of the above, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), and taking into account the observations made above and after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand, in the above terms (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court) (M. VEERAIYAN) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 4