TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e heard both the sides. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a) The appellant is a caterer and has served food and beverages to the employees of M/s EID Parry (India) Ltd., Alwar as per agreement with the said company. The appellant was not having any business premises of their own to run their business independently. They were given space by M/s EID Parry in their own factory/ place for the purpose of preparing and supplying the food to employees of the said company. The space was given without any rent. The food items were supplied at concessional rates to the employees. The subsidy involved was reimbursed to the appellant by M/s EID Parry. b) The Original Authority held that the appellant was running the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is leviable based on actual realization. In this case, the tax has been levied only w.e.f. 10.9.2004. The service tax confirmed includes tax for services rendered from September, 2004 onwards which is not legally correct. b) The authorities below have not given the benefit of cum-duty and taken the entire realization as value of taxable service. c) It is a case of pure interpretation of law and that they are a small time service provider and they have since closed the business activity because of the service tax liability. They should be given the benefit of Section 80. They have paid demanded duty along with interest in spite of hardship faced by them. 5. The learned DR submits that even if the appellant was not having a business premis....