2017 (12) TMI 1743 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT rules in favor of appellant on service tax issue emphasizing compliance with notification requirements

M/s. Chokhi Dhani Versus CCE, Indore

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the denial of the benefit of notification no.12/2003-ST for ... Benefit of N/N. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - Classification of services - Mandap Keeper Service or not - appellant also provides catering facilities to its customers, who uses the mandap owned by the appellant - inclusion of value of food items into the convention services - HELD THAT:- The appellant had demonstrated the charges separately claimed for the mandap keeper service and for providing the catering service to the customers. Hence, the requirements of N/N.12/2003 have been duly complied with and accordingly, the service tax demand cannot be confirmed by clubbing the value of food items sold during the course of providing “mandap keeper service‟. The appellant should be entitled for benefit of N/N.12/2003-ST. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Denial of benefit of notification no.12/2003-ST for Mandap Keeper ServiceIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue at hand revolves around the denial of the benefit of notification no.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 concerning the Mandap Keeper Service. The appellant, registered under this taxable category, also provides catering facilities to customers using the mandap owned by them. The Department included the value of food items in the convention services, leading to a service tax demand against the appellant under Mandap Keeper service. The appellant's claim under the notification was rejected due to a lack of documentary proof regarding the value of food articles sold to service recipients.The Tribunal observed that the appellant had indeed charged separately for the Mandap Keeper service and the catering service provided to customers who used the mandap. As per the requirements of notification no.12/2003, the appellant had complied by demonstrating the separate charges. Therefore, the service tax demand could not be upheld by combining the value of food items sold during the provision of the Mandap Keeper service. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's favor, emphasizing compliance with the notification.Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appeals were allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of notification no.12/2003-ST. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with notification requirements and ensuring separate charges for distinct services to avoid tax implications.