2014 (4) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h sides, we find that the adjudicating authority has denied CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs.21,65,184/- to the appellant for the period from September 2007 to September 2010 in respect of 'outdoor catering service' which was used by them for supply of food in their factory canteen to the workers. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has claimed prima facie case on the strength of two High Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that these aspects mentioned by the learned counsel are not forthcoming in the memo of appeal or the stay application. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority, in his own way, distinguished the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. from the case on hand and, accordingly, did not choose to follow the High Court's d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n for claiming the benefit of the Hon'ble High Court's judgements. In this scenario, we are unable to hold that they have made out a clear prima facie case against the demand. nevertheless, for the moment, we are not impressed with the way in which the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. was distinguished by the adjudicating authority. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the appellant is dir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X