TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder No. 42969/2018 - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Ms. P. Srija, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs falling under Chapter Headings 29 and 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is a holder of Central Excise Registration. They availed CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services like Maintenance and Repair Service, Authorized Service Station, Business Support Service, Outdoor Catering Service, Custom House Agent (CHA) Service, Clearing and Forwarding (C F) Agent Service, Courier Service and Security Services. 2. Subsequent to the verification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Ms. P. Srija appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ld. AC (AR) Shri. L. Nandakumar appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate submitted that the only issue involved was with regard to the denial of CENVAT Credit on Outdoor Catering Services. She further submitted that issue is no more res integra as the same had already been considered and laid to rest by the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai-III Vs. Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd. 2016 (42) S.T.R. 815 (Mad.) as well as the decision of this Bench of CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal recording a finding does not arise. 11. Though a notification was issued in Notification No. 3/2011, dated 1-3-2011 excluding the outdoor catering services, it came into effect on 1-4-2011. The period in question in this case relates to a period prior to 1-4-2011. 12. Therefore, the questions of law are answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 8. I find that the above ratio squarely applies to the case on hand. Going therefore by the above ratio, I am of the opinion that the denial of CENVAT Credit on Outdoor Catering Service is unjustified for which reason I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
