2025 (7) TMI 1264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Trust Patiala. Revenue was of the opinion that the service rendered by the appellants to Improvement Trust Patiala was taxable under Residential Complex Service and accordingly, two show cause notices dated 04.02.2013 & 21.04.2014, demanding service tax of Rs.7,47,981/- for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012 and Rs.1,13,277/- for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013; Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 26.06.2014 confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notice along with interest and penalty and appropriated Rs.8,61,258/- already deposited by the noticee. On an appeal preferred by the appellants, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 08.01.2015 confirmed the duty demanded along with interest; upheld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HD/ 2011-12 dated 22.03.2012, Surinder Kumar Mittal - 2013 (31) STR 12 (Tri Del.) and Ashok Kumar Mishra - 2013 (32) STR 300 (Tri. Del.). 3. Shri Kanish Saini, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the impugned order finds that the argument of the appellants that they did not satisfy Condition No.(iv) of Section 65(91)(a) as Patiala Improvement Trust for which they have built the residential complex are not required to take any approval of the layout from the competent authority as they themselves approved the layout; learned Commissioner finds that the argument of the appellant is contradictory because on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mar Mittal (supra) held that: 3. We have considered the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. We find that there is provision in the Notification to the effect that value of services exempted by other Notification should not be taken into account for calculating the aggregate value under Notification No. 4/2007-S.T. The argument that they were providing only tea and snacks and such items were not substantial and satisfying meal seems to be misplaced because the canteen was operated for providing meals to employees of AIL and tea and snacks were only items served at times intervening between that for substantial meals and that was not the main service provided." 7. We also find that Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra (supra) held that: "....