Tribunal grants cenvat credit for outdoor catering services, finding them used for business activities.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the Appellant cenvat credit on outdoor catering services. The Tribunal held that the services were used for business activities, not personal use by employees, in line with the definition of input service. Relying on precedents and circulars, the Tribunal found no evidence to counter the Appellant's claims, leading to the setting aside of the previous orders denying the credit.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Denial of cenvat credit on outdoor catering services
- Interpretation of the definition of input service
- Application of circulars clarifying eligibility of input services
- Precedents supporting the claim for credit

Analysis:

Denial of cenvat credit on outdoor catering services:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal upholding Orders-in-Original denying cenvat credit on outdoor catering services for the period December 2011 to December 2012. The lower authorities rejected the credit citing the amended definition of input service disallowing services used for personal use or consumption by employees.

Interpretation of the definition of input service:
The Appellant argued that outdoor catering services were used in relation to business activities, not for personal use or consumption by employees. They relied on TRU circular and Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX to support their claim that such services are eligible unless used for personal purposes. The Counsel emphasized that the cost of the services was borne by the company, not the employees, aligning with the pre-amendment eligibility criteria.

Application of circulars clarifying eligibility of input services:
The circulars highlighted by the Appellant clarified that outdoor catering services are not inherently ineligible for credit but become so only when used for personal consumption by employees. The lack of evidence from the Revenue to counter the Appellant's claims further strengthened the argument in favor of allowing the cenvat credit.

Precedents supporting the claim for credit:
The Counsel referenced decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, emphasizing that input services forming part of the cost of manufacturing are entitled to credit. These precedents supported the Appellant's contention that outdoor catering services, when used for business activities and not personal consumption, should be eligible for cenvat credit.

In the judgment, the Tribunal sided with the Appellant, holding that the outdoor catering services were utilized for business activities, not personal use by employees. The Tribunal emphasized the specific language of the definition of input service and the absence of evidence to refute the Appellant's claims. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, granting the Appellant the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services.

---