TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal preferred by the present appellant herein and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Order in Appeal No. 58/2012, confirming the demand raised by the adjudicating authority to recover the amount of Rs. 1,59,353/- on the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed by the appellant, the apellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 2. That the appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of 'Flourescent Tube Lights', General Lighting lamp, etc. and had availed Cenvat Credit on the entire payment made to the canteen contractor even though they recovered an amount of Rs. 13,27,415/- from the employees/beneficiaries during the period from June, 2007 to June, 2009. The show-cause notice came to be issued by the Assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and order, the Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Ahmedabad, the appellant has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed questions of law: 1. Whether the Cenvat Credit proportionate to the amount recovered from the employees/workers of the appellant is required to be disallowed to the appellant or not ? 2. Whether the limitation under sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act will be applicable when the credit improperly taken has been noticed during the course of second audit? 3. Whether an amount of Rs. 1,59,353/- being the cenvat credit should not be recovered unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availed. It is submitted that as such, the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the services provided by the appellant as out door catering service. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that as such the canteen was being run for the benefit of its employees which was mandatory under the Factories Act. 7. It is further submitted that as such the appellant has already now paid and reversed Cenvat Credit as per the impugned order, and therefore, now the question would be with respect to the interest and penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that even the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and considered the submissions with respect to the limitation as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entitled to Cenvat Credit which was claimed by them on the amount of Rs. 13,27,415/-. Therefore, under the circumstances, when the show-cause notice was issued to reverse the same and accordingly after giving opportunity to the appellant and when it was found that, in fact, an amount of Rs. 13,27,415/- was recovered by the contractor and the same was recovered by the appellant from its employees/beneficiaries, the appellant was not entitled to the Cenvat Credit of the same, no error has been committed in confirming the show-cause notice and making the demand of Rs. 1,59,353/-towards the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed by the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 11. Now....