Case Law Details
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
Commissioner of Central Excise
V/s.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
FINAL ORDER NO. 9 OF 2012
APPEAL NO. E/292 OF 2010
JANUARY 6, 2012
ORDER
1. The short question to be considered in this appeal filed by the department is whether the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the respondent is eligible for CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service used for serving food to their employees during the period of dispute (July to December 2007) is correct or not. After hearing both sides, the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) representing the appellant submits that the benefit is not admissible to the respondent unless they prove that no part of the cost of providing the service was recovered from their employees. The authorized representative of the respondent submits that the show-cause notice in this case did not raise any such ground for denial of CENVAT credit. On a perusal of the show-cause notice (copy produced by the respondent), I find that it was not alleged therein that the cost of service had been wholly or partly recovered from the employees. The objection raised by the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) cannot be sustained as it is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. It is not in dispute that the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated 8.4.2011 in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244/12 taxmann.com 101 (Kar.) is in favour of the assessee on the above issue. Therefore, the impugned order has to be sustained. It is ordered accordingly. The Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
