Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 156 - CESTAT CHENNAICENVAT Credit - input services - Outdoor Catering Services - Landscape/Gardening Services - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in M/S. ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI OUTER COMMISSIONERATE [2018 (11) TMI 1446 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has ruled in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VERSUS MILLIPORE INDIA (P.) LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Court has extracted the definition of input services and the same has been interpreted and it was held that The Environmental law expects the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws. That apart, now the concept of corporate social responsibility is also relevant. It is to discharge a statutory obligation, when the employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco-friendly manner, certainly, the tax paid on such services would form part of the costs of the final products. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the service tax paid in all these cases would fall within the input services and the assessee is entitled to the benefit thereof - the credit allowed on gardening services. Catering Services - HELD THAT:- Although the above interpretation squarely applies to Catering Services as well, but however, a factual verification as to whether the said services were availed by all the employees or were they provided only to specific employees, is required to be ascertained - this issue alone is sent back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for the factual verification and if it is found that the service was provided to the employees in general, then no denial is called for. The appeal therefore stands partly allowed and partly remanded on the above terms.
|