2015 (3) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant is a service provider under the category of "Banking and Other Financial Services" and also "Business Auxiliary Services". Show Cause notice dt. 17.10.2011 was issued alleging therein that the appellant is wrongly availing CENVAT credit in respect of outdoor catering service for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 and accordingly it was proposed to disallow the CENVAT credit availed for the period amounting to Rs. 15,57,123/- and also penalty was proposed under Section 77 & 78 of the Act. The appellant contested the show cause notice, which was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dt. 26.3.2012 wherein; it was held that the appellant have incurred expenditure by providing "canteeen facility services" for their employees. As appellant is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged the ground that reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. is misplaced. As in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. the Hon'ble High Court has taken into consideration that there are more than 250 workers and it was mandatorily requirement under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 to provide canteen facilities to the said workers, and it was under any statutory obligation to provide canteeen facilities to its employees, and accordingly prays for setting aside the order-in-appeal. 4. The ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee vehemently argues that the canteen facilities-services is provided to its employees to have a meal and/or refreshments. Usually employees are unable to carry the mid-day meal wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovided at residential quarters maintained for workers, by the manufacturer, it was held that as not having any direct or indirect relation to the manufacturing activity, distinguishing the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra). The Ld. AR also relies on the ruling of Single Member Bench in the case of IFB Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2013 (32) STR 650 (Tri-Bang) wherein the assessee had employed less than 250 workers during the period in dispute. The ld. Single Member Bench distinguishing the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) held that their being less than 250 workers, the service tax paid in respect....