Rain Cements Limited Unit-II Versus CCT, Tirupathi GST
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1407 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 17-5-2018
Appeal No. E/31224/2017 – IO/27/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Das Thavanam, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
[Order per: P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO]
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. This is a case of credit of the service tax paid on the food provided to the workers outsourced by the appellant. The definition of input service specifically excludes outdoor catering provided to the employees. The appellant argues that they have outsourced manpower to work in the factory
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rvice provider for the subsidised food although it is not evident from the records. In turn, the man power service provider bills the appellant for the food subsidy including the service tax thereon. The issue in dispute is the credit of the service tax element on this food subsidy. It is the case of the Revenue that this food subsidy amounts to outdoor catering services for employees and the credit of the service tax thereon is inadmissible in view of the specific exclusion in the Rules. The appellant argued that although it is called food subsidy, in fact, it is manpower outsourcing service and it is also a component of the charges paid to the manpower supplier. The department, on the other hand, argues that the bill is raised specificall
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. [2017(49) S.T.R 88 (Tri.-Hyd), Tribunal had specifically allowed credit of input service on outdoor catering services provided to the employees, considering this is a statutory requirement. Ld. DR points out that there have been conflicting orders regarding the availability of credit on outdoor catering service and hence in the case of Wipro Limited [2018(9)G.S.T.L. 285 (Tri.-Bang.)], the matter was referred to Hon'ble President for constituting Larger Bench to resolve the conflict between the decisions of different Benches. Hence, this case should also be referred to Larger Bench.
3. I have gone through the records of the case and I find one of the elements to be decided is whether or no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =