Court allows Cenvat Credit for services, no penalty imposed, appeal disposed.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the respondents, granting them the benefit of Cenvat Credit for various services. The court upheld the eligibility of the credit based on precedents and allowed canteen service credit based on actual expenses. The demand for service tax credit was limited to a specific amount within the normal period, with no penalty imposed on the respondent. The extended period for demand was not applicable, leading to the disposal of the appeal and cross objection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on various services including canteen services, air travel agent, rent-a-cab, vehicle maintenance, and mobile phones.
2. Nexus of services with the manufacture for Cenvat Credit eligibility.
3. Application of extended period for demand of service tax credit.
4. Calculation of cenvat credit for canteen services based on actual expenses.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant taking service tax credit on different services, leading to a show cause notice for inadmissible credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, but the appeal allowed the benefit of Cenvat Credit for all services, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Revenue argued that there was no nexus of services with manufacturing, thus credit inadmissible. However, after considering relevant decisions, the judge upheld the order in favor of the respondents based on precedents like Dr. Reddy's Lab Ltd. and Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

3. Regarding the canteen services, the judge referred to the Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case, stating that cenvat credit would be admissible based on actual expenses incurred, deducting recoveries from employees. The appellant's inability to calculate actual expenses led to disallowing the credit, limited to a specific amount within the normal period of limitation.

4. The judge agreed that the extended period could not be invoked due to the GTC Industries Ltd. decision, limiting the demand to the normal period. Consequently, the demand for service tax credit was upheld for a specific amount with interest, and no penalty was imposed on the respondent based on the circumstances of the case. The appeal and cross objection were disposed of accordingly.

---