Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs Graphite India Ltd
- CitationAppeal No 37-2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Service tax paid on outdoor catering service provided to employees is admissible as CENVAT credit where the employer is statutorily required to provide such catering, as the employer here has more than 250 workers. CENVAT credit of service tax paid on mobile telephone service is admissible where the employer has provided mobile phones to employees for use in office work; the employer is not required to prove that every call was made for official purposes only.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 37-2009 dated 20/03/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals), Bangalore-I ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 Appellant(s)
Versus
GRAPHITE INDIA LTD VISHVESHWARAYA INDUSTRIAK AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Dr.A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
Shri S. Loknath, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/01/2015
Date of Decision: 20/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20108 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The dispute relates to availability of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on catering service and mobile telephone service received by the appellant and availment of CENVAT credit of tax paid on the same. The issue is no longer res integra and there are several decisions taking a view that service tax paid on outdoor catering service and mobile service are admissible. In this case, admittedly, the appellants factory has more than 250 workers and therefore it is a statutory requirement for them to provide catering service to the employees. The credit of tax paid on mobile service had been disallowed only on the ground that the appellant had not produced proof to show that all the calls were used for official purpose only. I do not see such a requirement. There is no dispute that mobile phones have been provided by the company to the employees for use for office work. In such a situation, credit is admissible. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dropping the demand for CENVAT credit has no merits and is rejected.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in the court On conclusion of the hearing)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja.
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free