Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

October 2014

[2014] 48 taxmann.com 232 (Gujarat) – Cema Electric Lighting Products India (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether assesse is entitled to the CENVAT Credit in respect of catering services received when consideration is recovered from the beneficiaries/assessee’s own employees? Held, No

Facts:
The appellant, a manufacturer availed CENVAT Credit of entire payment made to the canteen contractor even though the amount is recovered from its employees/ beneficiaries of canteen service. The demand was confirmed under Rule 14 of the CCR in respect of the amount recovered. Both Appellate authorities confirmed the demand.

Held:
The appellant is not entitled for CENVAT Credit if the amount is recovered from the beneficiaries/its own employees while running the canteen. Further, it was held that concurrent finding of facts by both the authorities below, that full details were not furnished and entire amount was recovered, justifies the invocation of extended period of limitation

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Constitutional validity – Amendment made in section 80-IB(9) by adding an Explanation was not clarificatory, declaratory, curative or made “small repair” in the Act – On the contrary, it takes away the accrued and vested right of the Petitioner which had matured after the judgments of ITAT. Therefore, the Explanation added by the Finance (No.2) Act 2009 was a substantive law – Explanation added to section 80-IB(9) by the Finance (No.2) Act, of 2009 is clearly unconstitutional, violative of Arti<

2014 (35) STR 529 (Tri. – Ahmd.) Patel Air Freight vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Vadodara