TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services. Against which the appellant has filed the present appeal and he has confined his argument also with regard to denial of CENVAT credit on canteen services. The Commissioner has denied the CENVAT credit on canteen services mainly on the ground that after the amendment in the definition of input service w.e.f. 01/04/2011, canteen services / outdoor catering services has been excluded from the input services vide Rule 2(l)(C) of CCR, 2004. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3.1. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the denial of CENVAT credit of outdoor catering is beyond the show-cause notice. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice, the CENVAT credit on outdoor catering were proposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue was referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III [2018(363) ELT 1111 (Tri. LB)] has held that outdoor catering service, after the amendment in the input service post 01/04/2011 is not eligible for cenvat credit. The learned consultant has fairly conceded that after the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Wipro Ltd., appellants are not entitled to CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service. But in the present case, he has submitted that the entire demand of CENVAT credit on disputed canteen services is beyond limitation. He further submitted that show-cause notice was issued in the present case on 02/01/2015 covering the period December 2009 to September 2014 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of Electricity Meters, but also used for trading purposes. Admitting the said wrong availment of credit, being pointed out by C.E.R.A. Audit, the appellant had reversed it and also paid the interest on the same. It is also not in dispute that the show cause notice was issued to them after a lapse of one and a half year i.e. on 10-4-2009 proposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. I find that the show cause notice does not spell out the circumstances or facts which were suppressed and how the appellant had availed the said admissible CENVAT credit with mala fide intention. I also find that the Adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate authority did not discuss the facts which were suppressed or mis-decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation of the larger period of limitation. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Ajay Poly Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-I [2011(273) ELT 85 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was held that the show-cause notice was time barred as it was difficult to accept the department's contention that the relevant information with regard to the availment of cenvat credit on capital goods was deliberately suppressed by the appellant even though the appellant was regularly filing the ER-1 returns and the fact of clearance of goods without payment of duty under job work challan under Notification No.214/86-CE, was known to the department. He also relied upon the following decisions:- a. Shree Shree Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2008(232) ELT 68....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....last para). That part of the observation made by the Larger Bench cannot be upheld, because, once the service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax which is borne by the consumer. Shri Shridharan, learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded to the above position in law and in fact filed an affidavit affirmed by a responsible officer of the assessee wherein it is stated that the proportionate credit to the extent embedded in the cost of food recovered from the employee/worker has been reversed. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue of CENVAT credit on ou....