2011 (9) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e during the period from January 2008 to May 2008. The department was of the view that Outdoor Catering Services were not eligible to be treated as an input services as they were not in or in relation to manufacture of final products and were also not included in the illustrative list contained in the definition of 'input service' in Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was therefore issued to the respondent asking them why the CENVAT Credit should not be denied to the respondent's case. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the original authority who disallowed the CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 41,123/- and allowed the credit of Rs. 3,05,044/-. The respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I v. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R. 8 (Guj.) has held that the outdoor catering service provided in the factory canteen which is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to staff under Factories Act. Service is indirectly used in relation to manufacture of final product. He therefore contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the benefit of the CENVAT Credit to the respondent. He also submitted that in case the Commissioner (Appeals) order is modified there is no case for the department for imposition of the penalty as there was a difference of interpretation of the GTC Industries Ltd. case in diff....