2016 (3) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran JUDGMENT Judgment Was Delivered By V. Ramasubramanian, J. The Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 questioning the correctness of the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The first r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issued in respect of the period from January 2010 to September 2010. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise passed a common Order in Original No.43/2011 dated 25.10.2011 confirming the demand under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11A. A penalty was also imposed. The respondent/assessee filed an appeal, which was allowed by the  Tribunal by an order dated 9.7.2015. As ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;s decision was correct in holding that the outdoor catering service is an eligible input service in spite of specific ruling of the High Court, Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s.Pieco Electronics & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Kolkatta [Appeal No.353 of 2004] [reported in 2001 ITR 477] that even if a factory has to maintain a canteen, it cannot be said that it is an integra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....door catering services were actually used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or in providing output services. In other words, his contention is that there is no finding of fact so as to apply Rule 2(l). 9. But, we do not agree with the said contention. 10. Even in the Order in Original, the Commissioner did not dispute  the fact that the outdoor catering services wer....