TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 3,12,00,022/- for the period from 16^th June 2005 to 31^st March 2009 dated 19^th October 2010 for Rs. 76,92,214/- for the period from 1^st April 2009 to 31^st March 2010 and dated 5^th October 2011 for Rs. 1,79,01,649/- for the period from 01^st April 2010 to 31^st March 2011. A further show cause notice was issued on 18^th October 2012 demanding Rs. 2,70,10,395/- for the period from 1^st April 2011 to 31^st March 2012 which was adjudicated vide order-in-original no.11/ST/RN/CMR/MII/13-14 date 31^st December 2013 by Commissioner of Central Ex-est. Mumbai - Il. In computing the demand, tax was charged on the total receipts obtained by the appellant from M/s Larsen &Toubro after providing for abatement of 50% in accordance with notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving such services. and 'caterer' as defined under section 65(24) of the Act is 'any person who supplies, either directly or indirectly, any food, edible preparations, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or crockery and similar articles or accoutrements for any purpose or occasion' 4. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel that the appellant is a co-operative society comprising of employees of M/s Larsen & Toubro who are the beneficiaries of the canteen which is statutorily mandated under labour laws. It is also his contention that the appellant-society, comprising as it does of the beneficiaries, is excluded from tax owing to the principle of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to, or the performance of other services for, its members as also other customers and (b) the distribution among its members and customers, in the proportion rules or by the bylaws of the society, the profits accruing from such procurement production or processing, and distribution; indicating that the appellant is debarred from claiming exemption on the ground of mutuality. 6. We have gone through the records very carefully and find that the said activity sought to be taxed by Revenue is the performance of the statutory function that falls within the responsibility of M/s Larsen & Toubro, Powai in its capacity as an employer under the Factories Act, 1948. It would appear that, considering the need for employee satisfaction in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on behalf of M/s Larsen & Toubro. Whether the foods articles are provided free of cost or at subsidized rates or at market prices is a matter of labour-employer negotiations. It is clear that without the approval and concurrence of M/s Larsen & Toubro, the appellant could not engage in the activity of running the canteen. Nor can the appellant decide on rates of food articles or the composition of the individuals who are served in the canteen. The activity of the appellant is a consequence of the obligation of M/s Larsen & Toubro to its employees and is, therefore, but a service. 8. It remains to be seen if such service is taxable as 'outdoor catering service'. The primary difference between a 'caterer' and an 'outdoor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf. The appellant has engaged himself merely in preparation and serving the food items at the company premises. The above aspects have not been appreciated authorities below. The activities undertaken by the appellant cannot be held to fall under the category of outdoor catering service. The facts of the case in Raj Kumar Jain cited supra are entirely different and hence the said decision can not be applied to the facts of the present case.' In the present matter, appellant is an independent entity which does not have bear any loss on account of the rates which are not within its commercial decision. It cannot, therefore, claim to have been engaged merely to cook and serve. 11. In re Indian Coffee Workers Co-op. Society Ltd, wherein t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise [Final Order no. A/1332/15/STB dated 28^th May 2015] this Tribunal has held that cooperative societies which have been contracted by the companies are also provider of catering service and therefore, liable to service tax. 13. It is clear from the enunciation of the factual matrix that the appellant has been engaged to render a service on behalf of the employer and compensated for by the employer with some portion of the cost. The appellant cannot escape the liability of tax in view of the provision of service which is taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. 14. Appellant claims that the demand is barred by limitation of time because there was a bonafide belief of non-taxability. Reliance was placed on the decision in Larsen ....