M/S. Punjab Chemicals & Crop vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 97-98/CE/APP/CHD-II/2013 dated 20/3/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s. Punjab Chemicals & Crop Appellants Protection Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Chandigarh

Appearance:

None for the Appellants

Shri Devender Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 14. 5.2015

ORDER NO. FO/A 51674 /2015 SM

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Cenvat credit on outdoor caterings services has been denied to the appellant during the period September, 2009 to December, 2010 for the amount of service tax attributable to amount recovered from the employees for providing outdoor catering service.

2. Today, when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor is there any request for adjournment. On perusal of the record I find that on earlier occasion also i.e. 2.1.2015 and 25.2.2015, the matter came up for hearing before this Tribunal and although no request for adjournment was received, in the interest of justice matter was adjourned for today. Today, the appellant has not bothered to appear before this Tribunal nor sought adjournment of this case. Therefore appeal is taken up for disposal on its own merits.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the premise that the impugned order is beyond the scope of show cause notice and also claimed that notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation.

4. I have gone through the impugned order and perused the same. The issue relating to availment of Cenvat credit on outdoor catering service has been settled by decision of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement [2010 (20) STR 577(Bom)], wherein it has been held that any amount recovered towards outdoor catering from the employees, the service tax thereon is not entitled for Cenvat credit. Moreover, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. As the issue has already been settled by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) on 25.10.2010 and appellant was taken the input service credit on the amount of service tax paid on the amount recovered from the employees towards providing outdoor catering service. Therefore, the appellant is availing inadmissible Cenvat credit. Therefore, extended period of limitation is rightly invoked in the facts of this case. As the issue has already been settled against the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2