Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2021 (5) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The appellant is registered as a manufacturer of dutiable excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has established a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 and is having a canteen facility within their establishment to provide food, refreshment and beverages to the workers, employees and staff. The appellant's factory is situated in a village called 'Bidadi' which is approximately 40 kms., away from Bengaluru city and is duly registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and other labour laws. It is a 'factory' as defined under the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. The contention of the appellant is that keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under Sections 42 to 50 dealing with welfare of employees of the Factories Act, 1948, the appellant is under an obligation to establish a canteen in the premises of the factory. It has been further stated that as per the Rules framed by the State of Karnataka i.e., Mysore Factory Rules, under Rules 93 to 100, the appellant is required to maintain and supply food stuffs in the canteen and non compliance of the statutory provisions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23.4.2012 and the adjudicating authority has passed the order on 4.4.2013 confirming the demand of Rs. 37,53,952/- with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 11AC r/w Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 9. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bengaluru and the appellate authority has rejected the appeal by an order dated 24.7.2013. A second appeal was preferred before the CESTAT/Tribunal and the Tribunal has referred the matter as there were divergent decisions across India on the issue to a larger Bench and finally, the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the department and an order was passed dismissing the appeal. 10. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel arguing the matter before this Court is that the assessing officer, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal have erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the statutory definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and as there is a duty casted upon the appellant to establish a canteen under the Factories Act, 1948, by no stretch of imagination the amendment which includes certain exceptionary servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal products, up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal; but excludes, - (A) services portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified - services insofar as they are used for - (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; Or (B) Services 'provided by way of renting of a motor ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. It is certainly not in dispute that said services prior to 1.4.2011 have been held to be covered by the definition of 'input service', however, after the amendment came into force in the light of specific exclusion clause, 'outdoor catering' service is not at all covered under the definition of 'input service'. 16. Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in the case of Ganeshan Builders Ltd., (supra). In the aforesaid case, there was an insurance in existence and it was not an insurance in individual worker's name. the Madras High Court has held that the insurance policy was assessee's specific and not employee's specific and as there was a mandatory duty casted upon the assessee to establish a canteen under the Building and Other Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, has allowed the writ petition, whereas, in the present case no such contingency is involved. In the present case though the expenses incurred in respect of the canteen services for providing food and beverages in canteen maintained and run by the employer is included towards the total cost of the product and it is certainly required to est....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,, reaffirmed by LORD HALS-BURY and LORD SIMOND, means: "The subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose; and also that every Act of Parliament must be read according to the natural construction of its words" (Re, Micklethwait, (1885) 11 Ex 452, p.456. In a classic passage LORD CAIRNS stated the principle thus: "If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute". (Partington v. A.G., (1869) LR 4 HL 100, p.122: 21 LT 370). VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with approval a passage from TOWLATT, J. expressing the principle in the following words: "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any int....