TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services, availed after 01.04.2011, was admissible and the recredit taken by the appellant was sustainable; (ii) whether penalty was imposable in the facts of the case.
Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services, availed after 01.04.2011, was admissible and the recredit taken by the appellant was sustainable.
Analysis: The issue had already been decided in the appellant's own case for the relevant period. Following that decision, the Tribunal held that outdoor catering service was not eligible for credit for the period in question and that the appellant's recredit after reversal was not proper. The demand was also treated as justified because it related to the same set of invoices and the same period already dealt with earlier.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of Revenue; the demand was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether penalty was imposable in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The Tribunal treated the controversy as interpretational in nature. On that basis, it held that the appellant could not be fastened with intention to evade payment of duty for the disputed availment of credit.
Conclusion: The penalty was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The demand on the disputed recredit was sustained, but the penalty was deleted because the dispute was interpretational in nature.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
