TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce' – Held that:- The “outdoor catering service” availed by the respondent cannot mature to be an ‘input service' unless it is proved during the material period, they had employed more than 250 workers and the cost of supply of food to the workers was also included in the cost of production of excisable goods - Since neither of these aspects is proved in the appeal memo – against assessee. - E/7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the said period. If the number of workers who availed the canteen facility was less than 250, it cannot be said that the respondent was statutorily liable to maintain the canteen or that the "outdoor catering service" used for supply of food in the canteen had any nexus with the manufacture/clearance of the final product. Learned DR has relied on the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority held thus: "Subsidized food is a privilege accorded to the employees by the management of the unit. By providing hygienic food, within a time slot and at a common place, the management indirectly boosts the efficiency of the employees which results in increase in production. This element is a vital ingredient in determining the cost of the finished goods and finds place in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Commissioner Vs. Ultra tech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.). In this scenario, the view taken by the lower appellate authority with regard to outdoor catering service is only liable to be upheld. 5. The learned DR has made mention of two aspects which are claimed to have a bearing on the question whether outdoor catering service can be accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
