TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,92,560/- for the period April 2008 to September 2011 under the category of 'Mandap Keeper's Service'. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is providing Catering Services, Pandal & Samiana Services and Mandap Keeping Service and registered with the department for paying service tax. The appellant charged hall rent and supply of food in the invoice separately. The appellant paid service tax on the amount charged for hall rent, but, did not pay service tax on the amount of food charges collected from the clients and shown separately on the invoices as being VAT paid thereon. Therefore, in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 they are not required to pay service tax thereon as they are paying VAT on the value of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted in 2010 (18) STR 75 (T), Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE-2013 (32) STR 379 (T) and Sky Gourmet Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore 2009 (14) STR 777 (T). He also submits that in terms of Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on supply of foods. Therefore, the demand on account of now payment of service tax is not sustainable. 4. With regard to cenvat credit, it is his submission that the appellant took the cenvat credit during the period October 2006 to September 2010 and shown the same in their ST-3 Returns. During that period, no objection was raised and nor any discrepancy was pointed out. Further, Audit of the appellant was also conducted from time to time, but, never i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3-ST dated 20.06.2003, the appellant is entitled to claim deduction on the value of the foods supplied. Admittedly, on full value of food supplied, the appellant has paid VAT, therefore, in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, the appellant is entitled to claim deduction. The said view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Despalla Hotels Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "4. In the instant case, the appellants have produced evidence to substantiate their claim that they have paid value added tax on the value of food and beverages sought to be taxed under 'convention service, vide the impugned order. In the light of the constitutional provisions relied on by the Tribunal in Sky Gourmet ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mutually exclusive. Therefore, they should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from an indivisible contract. It may consist of different elements providing for attracting different nature of levy. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that in a case of this nature, sales tax would be payable on the value of the entire contract; irrespective of the element of service provided." These observations apply equally to exigibility of goods, supplied in the course of provision of service under a contract to provide service, as service. In the circumstances, we vacate the impugned demand and concomitant penalties. The appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Panchayats, Members of Municipalities and Members of other local authorities who receive any consideration in performing the functions of that office as such member; or (B) the duties performed by any person who holds any post in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution in that capacity; or (C) the duties performed by any person as a Chairperson or a Member or a Director in a body established by the Central Government or State Governments or local authority and who is not deemed as an employee before the commencement of this section. 'Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this clause, the expression "transaction in money or actionable claim" shall not include any activity relating to use of money or its conve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the show cause notice issued to the appellant on 30.03.2012 for the period October 2006 to September 2010 is barred by limitation. As the fact of the availment of the cenvat credit was in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. 11. We further take a note of the fact that as extended period of limitation is not invokable and demand is not sustainable against the appellant. Therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 12. In view of this, we set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief, if any. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) ============= Document 1 BANA ORCHID Ph 191 1624 so00 Fax ....