CENVAT credit denied for outdoor catering services after 2011 amendment but interest and penalty demands quashed

CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant could not avail CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services post 01.04.2011 amendment, following Wipro Limited precedent which established exclusion under clause C(ii) of input service definition in CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. However, demand for interest was set aside following Karnataka HC decision in Bill Forge case. Penalty under Rule 15(1) was also set aside as earlier proceedings had dropped similar penalties and adjudicating authority had previously dropped penalties for subsequent periods. Appeal allowed in part with credit denial upheld but interest and penalty demands quashed.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on 'outdoor catering services' post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011.2. Whether the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant is sustainable.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:The relevant legal framework and precedents considered include the Factories Act, 1948, Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969, Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and various decisions of the Tribunal and courts. The Court interpreted that post 01.04.2011, the appellant was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit on 'outdoor catering services' as it fell under the exclusion clause (C) of Rule 2(l). Key evidence included the appellant's engagement of outdoor caterers to provide food and beverages to comply with statutory requirements. The Court applied the law to facts by analyzing the conflicting views of the Tribunal and ultimately relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in Wipro Limited case, which held that the appellant was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit. Competing arguments were presented by the appellant and the Revenue, with the Court concluding that the appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit on 'outdoor catering services' post the amendment.Issue 2:The Court considered the appellant's argument regarding the demand of interest and penalty. The appellant contended that since they had reversed the entire Cenvat credit of Rs. 58,15,867/- voluntarily, they should not be liable to pay interest. The appellant also argued that the penalty imposed was unwarranted as the issue involved a genuine interpretation of statutory provisions. The Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The Court examined the legal position and previous decisions, including the High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Bill Forge, and held that the demand of interest and imposition of penalty were unsustainable. The Court found that the penalty imposed was not justifiable given the genuine interpretation of the statutory provisions.Significant holdings:The Court upheld the decision that the appellant was not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on 'outdoor catering services' post the amendment. However, the Court set aside the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant, deeming them unsustainable based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the appeal by upholding the confirmation of the demand of service tax on 'outdoor catering services' but setting aside the demand of interest and imposition of penalty. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 13.02.2025.

---