LAWS(CE)-2014-11-101

BHARTI HEXACOM INDIA LTD. Vs. CCE

Decided On November 07, 2014
Bharti Hexacom India Ltd. Appellant
V/S
CCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate submits that they had been denied cenvat credit of Rs. 1,51,759/ - pertaining to outdoor catering service and Rs. 42,724/ - pertaining to rent on immovable properties on the ground that these services used for installation of tower do not have nexus with their output services. The ld. Advocate states that in their own case vide order No. A 51734/2014 EX -SM dated 23.04.2014 in identical circumstance for the period 2008 -09 cenvat credit pertaining to outdoor catering has been allowed and the impugned credit of Rs. 1,51,759/ - pertains to the subsequent period (2009 -10). As regards the credit on renting of immovable property, the ld. advocate explains that they have rented the place from a hotel to install their tower. The renting was therefore having direct nexus with their output service. Ld. AR referred to the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v/s. Sundaram Brake Linings - : 2010 (19) STR 172 (Tri -Chennai) to state that credit on outdoor catering service is not admissible. The written submissions were also placed by the appellants which I have perused. They have given several citations essentially to the effect that the credit on out door catering service is admissible.

(2.) I have considered the submissions from both the sides. I find that in an inter partes order dated 23.04.2014 (supra) the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services in identical circumstances though for a previous period had been permitted. I am not inclined to not follow the precedent of the said CESTAT order in the assessee s own case and therefore do not feel it necessary to indulge in a discussion on this issue. As regards the credit pertaining to renting of immovable properties, there is no doubt that the rent has been paid to install their towers which are used for boosting their signals to provide output services. Therefore, it is evident that the premises have been rented for the purpose of providing their out -put service and thus the renting of immovable property has a clear nexus thereto. In the light of the forgoing, I allow the assessee s appeal.