2017 (3) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (A.R.) for the Respondent Order The fact of the case is that appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of outdoor catering services provided to their employee, 50% of the catering charges are recovered from employees. The adjudicating authority has held appellant is recovering 50% of the element of the basic value from the worker only and not the service tax. Accordingly, he dropped t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... half of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the issue involved the present case has already been decided in appellant's own case by this Tribunal vide final Order No. A/93946-93947/16/SMB dated 30/9/2016. The Tribunal has held as under: 5.I find that as per the fact of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... would be allowable to a manufacturer even in cases where the cost of the food is borne by the worker (see last para). That part of the observation made by the Larger Bench cannot be upheld, because, once the service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax which is borne by the consumer. Shri Shridh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X