2009 (4) TMI 145 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate tribunal rules in favor of appellants, recognizing outdoor catering services as 'input service' for manufacturers.

PUDUMJEE PULP & PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I

The appellate tribunal overturned the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants for denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services. The ... Cenvat Credit – Input Service – held that - Larger Bench held that outdoor catering service was an ‘input service’ for the manufacturer inasmuch as the cost of supply of food to the employees formed a part of the cost of production of excisable goods in the factory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) did consider the decision cited by the assessees, but in a manner which smacks of judicial indiscipline. - The impugned order shows that its author was mindless of this obligation, which conduct calls for deprecation. The adjudicating and appellate authorities in the department have got to scrupulously follow the binding judicial precedents for the sake of administering justice in their proceedings – credit allowed Issues:Appeal against demand of duty and penalty for denial of CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service as 'input service'.Analysis:1. Issue of Denial of CENVAT Credit:- The appeals challenged a common order sustaining a duty demand against the appellants for the period of 2005-2008 due to denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for outdoor catering services in factory-canteens.- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, rejecting the service as an 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- The appellants relied on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, which recognized outdoor catering service as an 'input service' for manufacturers with factory canteens.- However, the Commissioner's refusal to consider the Tribunal's decision led to a lack of judicial discipline and a failure to follow binding precedents.2. Interpretation of 'Input Service' and Precedent:- The Larger Bench decision in G.T.C. Industries Limited extensively analyzed 'input service' under Rule 2(1) and concluded that catering services providing subsidized food to employees were integral to the cost of production and thus qualified as 'input service'.- Despite a similar factual scenario in the present case, the Commissioner disregarded the Tribunal's decision and deemed catering services as not constituting 'input service'.- The failure to follow binding precedents, especially in the absence of any challenge to the Tribunal's decision, highlighted a lack of judicial discipline and propriety.3. Judicial Discipline and Precedents:- The records indicated that the costs related to the canteen services were certified as part of the total cost of goods produced, aligning with the Tribunal's decision.- The appellate authority's disregard for the Tribunal's decision, coupled with the availability of certificates and precedents, showcased a lack of judicial discipline and adherence to established legal principles.- The obligation to follow binding judicial precedents for the sake of justice administration was emphasized, urging authorities to align with established legal interpretations.4. Decision and Outcome:- The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellants' case based on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in G.T.C. Industries, overturning the duty demand and penalties imposed.- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to binding judicial precedents for consistency and fairness in legal proceedings.