TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpretational in nature and there were conflicting decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal after which the matter was referred to Larger Bench. Taking these aspects into consideration, it cannot be said that appellant has wilfully suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke the extended period. The entire demand is raised by invoking extended period - invocation of extended period cannot sustain and the demand is time-barred. The appeal is allowed on limitation. - EXCISE APPEAL No.40702 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER No. 40126/2022 - Dated:- 25-3-2022 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They then availed credit for this service tax as these services are integral to its manufacturing activity. The Department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible to avail cenvat credit on outdoor catering services as it does not have any nexus to the manufacturing activity. Further that appellant is not eligible on account of amendment introduced with effect from 01.04.2011 to Rule 2 (l) of CCR 2004 wherein the services in the nature of outdoor catering services are specifically excluded. 2.3 After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest holding that appellant is not eligible for credit and also imposed penalty. Against this appellant filed appal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case as services have been availed for compliance of the Factories Act, 1948 / Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 without which the appellant cannot carry out the manufacturing activity. 2.7 Ld. Counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. He submitted that entire demand for the disputed period was raised by issuing show cause notice dated 06.02.2020 by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act. The present issue involves interpretation of legal provisions. There were conflicting decisions by different Bench of the Tribunal and the issue was referred to Larger Bench in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra). The issue being interpretational, appellant cannot be saddled with intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically exclude the services provided in relation to outdoor catering service . Admittedly, such services prior to 1042011 have been held to be covered by the definition of input service . In fact, the need for exclusion would arise only when the services are otherwise covered by the definition. The legislature in its wisdom has excluded certain services from the availment of CENVAT credit w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when such services are otherwise covered by the main definition clause of the input service . To interpret, the said input clause, in such manner so as to hold that such services have direct or indirect nexus with the assessee s business and thus would be covered by the definition, would amount to defeat the legislative intent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above discussions and the various decisions cited by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the outdoor catering service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 1.4.2011 vide Notification No.3/2011 dated 18.3.2011. 8. The reference is answered accordingly. 9. With the above observations, we revert the matter to the regular Bench for deciding the respective appeals. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue stands covered by the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Wipro Ltd. (supra). Following the same, I am of the view that appellants do not have case on merits. 7. Ld. Counsel for appellant has argued on the ground of limitation also. As seen from the narration of the submissions made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
