TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the appellant. In the present case outdoor catering service is not provided primarily for personal use and consumption of the employees therefore does not fall under the exclusion category. I also find that even if the exclusion of certain service is provided from the definition of input service, this Tribunal has allowed the credit on the identical services. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - on the identical issue auditors have raised objection by issuing show cause notice dated 24-4-2015 for the almost same period - reliance placed in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that once the SCN for a particular period was issued, for the same per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than the employees families of the company therefore services was not primarily used for personal use or consumption of any employee. Therefore, it will not fall under the exclusion category. He further submits that even after exclusion of outdoor catering service made in the definition of input service, Cenvat credit was allowed in the following judgments: (a) Gateway Terminals (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. EX., Raigad[2015 (39) S.T.R. 1027 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (b) Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., LTU, Mumbai[2016 (45) S.T.R. 383 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (c) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. EX., Nashik[2015 (38) S.T.R. 129 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (d) General Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus SIDDHARTH TUBES LTD.[2004 (170) E.L.T. 331 (Tri. - Del.)] (b) SHREEJI COLOURCHEM INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF C.EX. CUS., VADODARA[2013 (294) E.L.T. 615 (Tri. -Ahmd.)] (c) PARO FOOD PRODUCTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD[2005 (184) E.L.T. 50 (Tri. - Bang.)] (d) COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT Versus PACE MARKETING SPECIALITIES LTD. [2000 (119) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal)] (e) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-III Versus MCCO CORPN. LTD. [2003 (157) E.L.T. 409 (Tri. - Kolkata)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 1700 410(Plant 18) From the above chart, it is observed that outdoor catering service was mainly provided to outsider business guests. Firstly outdoor catering service is in relation to overall function of the manufacturer related to business, therefore it cannot be said that this service is for personal use of the employees. Secondly, it is primarily used not for the employees but for other than the employees which are business guests of the appellant, therefore I am of the view that in the present case outdoor catering service is not provided primarily for personal use and consumption of the employees therefore does not fall under the exclusion category. I also find that even if the exclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
