Tribunal rules food delivery not outdoor catering; service tax demand unsustainable.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that selling and delivering food did not constitute outdoor catering service as there was no personalized service element involved. The demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Demand of service tax under outdoor catering service.

Analysis:
The appellant was engaged in supplying food to a company and was raising bills for the sale of food and transportation separately. The department alleged that the activity fell under outdoor catering service and issued a show cause notice for demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that they were only selling food and not providing any service as defined under outdoor catering service. They highlighted that the transportation was collected on a cost basis, and they did not serve food to the company's workers. The appellant relied on relevant legal precedents and circulars to support their position. Additionally, they contended that they had paid the service tax upon investigation before the show cause notice was issued, thus no penalty should be imposed.

The department argued that the appellant was not only preparing food but also overseeing the activity at the company's premises, which constituted a service element falling under outdoor catering service. They emphasized that separate invoices were raised for food supply and transportation, indicating an attempt to evade service tax.

The Tribunal analyzed the definition of outdoor catering service and noted that personalized service was a key element in such services. They referred to legal precedents to distinguish between outdoor catering and mere sale of food. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activity of delivering food to the company did not involve a service element as required under outdoor catering service. Therefore, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the activity of selling and delivering food did not qualify as outdoor catering service, as there was no personalized service element involved. The demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

---