TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case to verify canteen facility requirement, considers outdoor catering for CENVAT credit</h1> <h3>CCE, MYSORE Versus M/s BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LTD</h3> CCE, MYSORE Versus M/s BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LTD - TMI Issues:1. Whether outdoor catering service provided to employees through a canteen facility qualifies as an 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules.2. Whether the demand of duty is time-barred.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal concerns the classification of outdoor catering services provided to employees through a canteen facility as an 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Assistant Commissioner denied the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent on these services, leading to a demand for recovery, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal based on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in a similar case. The Department contested this decision, citing a different High Court decision and questioning the statutory obligation of the respondent to provide the service to employees. The Tribunal noted the statutory obligation under the Factories Act for the respondent to provide the canteen facility and remanded the case to verify if the respondent met the condition. The Tribunal emphasized that if the statutory obligation is fulfilled, the outdoor catering service can be considered an 'input service' eligible for CENVAT credit, aligning with previous court decisions supporting the same interpretation.Issue 2:Additionally, the respondent raised a cross-objection asserting that the demand of duty is time-barred. The Tribunal acknowledged this submission, highlighting the need for the original authority to reevaluate both the substantive issue of 'input service' classification and the limitation issue in compliance with legal principles and natural justice. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal and cross-objection were allowed by way of remand, directing a fresh decision on the issues at hand.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the legal complexities and interpretations surrounding the classification of outdoor catering services as 'input services' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, as well as the consideration of the limitation aspect in the case.
TaxTMI 