9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, 2005 to January, 2007 and also imposed equal amount of penalty on the party under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel, at the outset, that a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal granted waiver and stay in respect of CENVAT credit taken on the same services for another period by the same assessee and, there fore, in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2009 (13) S.T.R. 490 (Bom.), the same relief should be granted to the appellant in the present case. The order of Coordinate Bench referred to by the counsel in Order No. S/221/WZB/09/C-IV dated 1-7-2009. On a perusal of this order, I note that the learned Member was pleased to grant waiver of pre-deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, following the view taken in the above order dated 6-4-2009, I hold that the appellant has not made out prima facie case against demand of duty relating to garden maintenance service. The learned counsel has then referred to Commissioner v. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. - 2008 (13) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Bom.) wherein Cenvat credit was allowed on Rent-A-Cab service and also to a stay order of the Tribunal reported as Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 138 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein one of the service recognized as 'input service' was car maintenance and repairs. The learned counsel has made an endeavour to strike a parallel between the maintenance and repair service involved in the instant case and the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case against the demand pertaining to security services. 4. However, in respect of 'outdoor catering services' employed by the appellant for supply of food in the factory-canteen to the factory-workers, the learned counsel has made out a prima facie case on the strength of Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Commissioner v. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tri.-LB). The learned SDR has submitted that cost of food supplied in the factory-canteen was recovered by the assessee from the employees and, therefore, the benefit of the Larger Bench decision may not be available to the appellant. I find, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the objection raised by the SDR is also taken cane of in the judgment of the Larger Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
