CCE, CHENNAI Vs. SUNDARAM BRAKE LININGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF FACTS.

(2.) THESE 13 cases were heard together as a common issue is involved in all these cases. The respondents in these cases have claimed credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service claiming the same to be input service used in or in relation to various manufactured excisable goods. The following table showing the list of manufactured excisable goods has been prepared on the basis of submissions made by the learned advocates for the respondents and the learned SDR appearing for the Department. In all these cases the original authorities have denied the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service utilized by the respondents mainly on the ground that the same was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished excisable goods in the factories of the respondents. In a typical case, (for example, in Appeal No. E/88/2009) the show -cause notice alleges that the respondents took credit of service tax paid on the catering service provided by M/s. Siva Industrial Caterers (I) (P) Ltd. and M/s. Vaigai Canteen (P) Ltd. The canteen service providers brought prepared food into the factory of the respondents in their own vessels and served the food to the labourers and staff of the respondent -company and others. The canteen service providers submit bills to the respondents at periodical intervals and appropriate service tax is charged in the bills by the canteen service providers. Service tax so paid is taken as credit by the respondents and adjusted towards payment of excise duty on the motor vehicle parts manufactured and cleared by the respondents. It has been further alleged in the show -cause notice that food is supplied by the canteen service providers for the labourers and staff and that no goods are manufactured utilizing the impugned catering service. Hence it has been proposed in the said notice that the catering services are not even remotely related to the manufacture of the final product. The further allegation by the Department is that the catering services are also not specifically mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which defines 'input service' to mean any service, '

(3.) IN all these cases, though the original authorities have denied the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service, the lower appellate authorities have allowed such credit in favour of the respondents mainly applying the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. GTC Industries Ltd. : 2008 (12) STR 468 leading to these appeals by different Commissioners of Central Excise as well as Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU.