Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd on 27 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. ST/86406/13 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 1 dtd. 10/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Zone, Mumbai -I] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai
:
Appellants
VS
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Appellants
Shri. Sunil Gabhawala, C.A. for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 27/2/2015
Date of decision 27/2/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This Revenues appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 1 dtd. 10/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Zone, Mumbai I, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal, with consequential relief, filed by the respondent. The fact of the case is that the respondent, M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Management Consultancy Service, management Maintenance and Repair Service, Commercial Training or Coaching Service, Erection Commissioning and Installation Service, Franchise Servcie, Business Auxiliary Service and Transport of Goods by Road Service etc. They are availing Cenvat credit on service tax paid on various input services for providing above mentioned out put services. Respondent also availed Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service. The Revenue issued a show cause notice and vide Order-in-original No. 17/LTU/2011/ADDL/BSM dated 20/10/2011 disallowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of outdoor catering service on the ground that the said service has no use in relation to provide output service. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the impugned order set aside the original order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Therefore the Revenue is before me.
2. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of Revenue submits that though the issue covered by Honble High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.[2010(20) S.T.R. 577(Bom)], however, Revenue has challenged the said High Court judgment before Honble Supreme Court and the same is pending. It is his submission that the matter has not attained finality since it is sub judice before Honble Supreme Court.
3. Shri. Sunil Gabhawala, Ld C.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that outdoor catering services are used for providing catering of food stuff to the staff member and which is directly related to providing output service. He placed reliance on judgment of Honble High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.(Supra), wherein Cenvat credit on outdoor catering service specifically allowed. He submits that since issue of Cenvat credit on outdoor catering service has been settled by the Honble High Court, appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5. It is observed that outdoor catering service is undisputedly used by the respondent in their office premises for the catering of food stuff for their employees. Therefore the same has direct nexus to output service provided by them. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment cited by the Ld. C.A. in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.(Supra). As regard the submission of Ld. A.R. that the Revenue has challenged the said decision before Honble Supreme Court, since Honble Apex court has not granted any stay to the Revenue, the said High Court judgment is very much in operation. In view of the position discussed above, the Revenues appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)) sk 2