TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with interest. 2. Brief facts of the appeal are as under : - 2.1 The Appellant is a proprietary firm engaged in catering service duly registered with the Service Tax Department under the taxable category of outdoor catering services. It appears the Appellant has availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 for discharging the service tax payable by duly complying with the twin conditions imposed by showing the value of the goods supplied and the service charges separately by discharging the VAT on the sale value of the food items supplied. Further, the Appellant was paying the service tax on the consolidated value wherever he was raising invoices including the cost of food items availing the benefit of the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 on 50% of the value. 2.2 Whereas, the Department was of the view that the Appellant has omitted to pay service tax on the cost of food items supplied to M/s. Cosmopolitan Club, Aviva and M/s. India Cements Ltd. denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 availed by them. Further, it was also noticed that in terms of contract entered into by the Appellant with M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Section 65(19)(ii) of the Act in clause reading "promotion or marketing of service provided by the client" as the Appellant has only provided marketing leads to M/s. Epicurean Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. to improve their services and in no way canvasses the business of Epicurean with Nokia. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 357 (SC)], he has contended that prior to 14.05.2015, the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules were held as ultravires and cannot include reimbursable expenditure or cost in the taxable value. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. N. Satyanarayana representing the Department has reiterated the findings in the impugned order dated 27.10.2015. 5. Heard both sides and have carefully gone through the evidences available on record. 6. From the facts it is revealed that in respect of invoices raised by the Appellant where the bill amount shows the cost of food items and service charges separately, the Appellant had paid service tax on the service charges collected by availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Writ Appeal Nos. 671-726/2011, dated 18-4-2011 has held that Outdoor Catering is a composite but divisible contract of service under Article 366(29)(a)(f) of the Constitution of India; hence, sale of goods has to be bifurcated from service provided. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: "6. The identical question with regard to the liability of the assessee towards service tax so far as service rendered by them with regard to the outdoor catering is concerned, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 671 to 726/2011 which were disposed off by the order dated 18-4-2011. By a detailed consideration and relying on various Supreme Court Judgments, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the outdoor catering contract is a contract for service by virtue of sub-clause (f) or Clause (29a) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India which has to be treated as composite contract and the State Legislature is competent to levy the sales tax on the sale aspect only namely, the value of the food articles. 7. The Division Bench held that outdoor catering c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is the amount received for demonstration of international cuisine to the customers; that commission is the incentive received from M/s. Fresh & Honest for the facility provided to them at their sales counter; that housekeeping and pantry management charges are charges received for the maintenance of the canteen and pantry premises; that based on the bills raised on the customers, they are collecting and paying service tax on these charges; that they have paid the service tax on the amount collected under housekeeping and pantry management charges under Outdoor Caterer Service on which no abatement claimed." 8.2 In this regard, we do not find any corroborative evidence in the Show Cause Notice or the impugned Order to shore up the Department's allegation that these charges actually relate to Outdoor Catering Service only. The aforesaid clarifications of appellant in this regard have also not been addressed or rebutted by the adjudicating authority. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this demand with interest and penalty also does not have any basis to sustain and will therefore have to be set aside, which we hereby do. 9. In the event, t....