2013 (3) TMI 201 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, exempting services from Service Tax

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided did not constitute outdoor catering services, resulting in a reduced ... Outdoor catering service - applicant is engaged in the business of cooking and serving food at the staff training facility of three banks, the banks providing LPG cooking range with cutlery, crockery, utensils and other equipments installed in the kitchen and other equipments required running for canteen provided by the said banks - Held that:- As in the case of Rajiv Kumar Gupta [2009 (3) TMI 122 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] with identical issue the assessee was held as not falling under the category of outdoor catering services. As from the agreement entered between the appellant and the banks terms and conditions are more or less identical. Thus the Tribunal's decision in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra) covers the disputed issue in favour of the appellant. Issues:Interpretation of outdoor catering services definition, applicability of Service Tax, imposition of penalties, suppression of facts, benefit of small scale exemption, legal interpretation based on agreements and correspondence.Interpretation of Outdoor Catering Services Definition:The appellant, engaged in cooking and serving food at banks' staff training facilities, was deemed by Revenue to provide outdoor catering services, leading to a demand of Rs.6,28,220. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that no Service Tax was leviable until 28.02.2006, confirming a reduced demand of Rs.2,47,764. The appellant argued against the extended period for demand confirmation, citing a Tribunal decision with similar circumstances favoring the assessee. The Tribunal found the terms of the agreements with banks akin to a previous case not constituting outdoor catering services, thus waiving the pre-deposit of duty and allowing the stay petition.Applicability of Service Tax and Imposition of Penalties:The Revenue raised a demand against the appellant for providing outdoor catering services, leading to penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the demand but confirmed a portion, extending small scale exemption and removing the penalties due to lack of suppression by the appellant. The Tribunal considered correspondence between the appellant and banks inconclusive for determining outdoor catering services, focusing on the facilities provided by the banks and the similarity with a previous case to rule in favor of the appellant.Suppression of Facts and Benefit of Small Scale Exemption:The appellant contested the imposition of penalties by arguing against the availability of an extended period due to no suppression. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of small scale exemption and removed penalties based on the absence of suppression. The Tribunal echoed the lack of suppression and deemed the terms of agreements and services provided akin to a previous case, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and the allowance of the stay petition.Legal Interpretation Based on Agreements and Correspondence:The Tribunal analyzed the agreements between the appellant and banks, emphasizing the facilities provided by the banks and the similarity with a previous case where outdoor catering services were not deemed applicable. Despite the appellant's correspondence regarding service tax reimbursement, the Tribunal found it insufficient to determine the nature of services provided, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the resemblance to a prior case and waiving the pre-deposit of duty.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the interpretation of outdoor catering services definition, applicability of Service Tax, imposition of penalties, suppression of facts, benefit of small scale exemption, and legal interpretation based on agreements and correspondence, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved in the case.