2015 (12) TMI 1154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The brief facts of the case are that the appellant availed input service credit on outdoor catering services during the impugned period. The appellant also recovered certain amount from the employees for providing subsidized food. Initially a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny input service credit on outdoor catering services holding that same is not an input service as per Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of the adjudication relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of C.C.E. Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. -2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom), the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand to the extent of the amount recovered by the appellant for providing subsidized food ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. Consequently, demands are required to be confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation and penalty is imposable. She further submits that in the light of the decision in the case of UOI Vs. Indswift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) E.L.T. 0003 (SC). Therefore interest is payable. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case it is admitted position as decided by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Supra) vide order dated 25.10.2010, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the amount recovered from the employees for providing subsidized food under the category of outdoor catering services. Before that there ....