TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Advocate, for respondent These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. PI/VSK/139 & 140/2009 dated 5.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and they are availing CENVAT credit of specified duties on inputs, capital goods and service tax credit on input services as per the CENVAT Cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees of the assessee as a cost of catering during the relevant period. The adjudicating authority also imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee. In appeal against the order-in-original, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB), allowed the appeals of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not correct and legal and needs to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the legal issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit. She submits that since the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. in their favour and the Hon'ble High Court has taken a di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also observed that the credit of service tax would be allowable to a manufacturer even in cases where the cost of the food is borne by the worker (see last para). That part of the observation made by the Larger Bench cannot be upheld, because, once the service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service ta....