TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order), whereby the Order in Original No. MAD-CEX-000-ADC-08-15 dated 17-02-2015 of the adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. Relevant facts are that the appellant is registered for providing mandap keeper, rent-a-cab operator, renting of immovable property, accommodation service and restaurant services. The appellants are paying applicable service tax and are filing the required mandatory ST3 returns. During the course of audit of the appellant's records it was noticed that the appellants have banquet halls, that are let out for conducting social/official functions collecting hall charges, upon which service tax has been paid under the category mandap keeper. However, in respect of the food and beverages (catering) provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended period for demanding service tax. He would submit that the conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority that the services provided as mandap keeper is a composite service is wrong, as food is provided as per the option of the customer and hence it cannot be treated as a composite service. Learned counsel would further submit that the Notification No.12/2003 dated 20-06-2003 provides for exemption to the extent of value of the goods supplied with the service subject to the condition that there is evidence for the value of the goods supplied. In the present case, separate bills were raised for food and appropriate value added tax was also paid and hence in as much as the appellant is eligible to avail the benefit of the said notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shown separately by different charges as banquet hall charges and similarly for food charges separately in relation to "Mandap Keeper" services is permissible and does not disentitle benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 28th June, 2003. In this context, para 2,3,4 of the aforesaid decision as reported in 2020 (1) TMI 675 (CESTAT New Delhi) in the matter of M/S CHOKHI DHANI RESORTS P. LTD v PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX is reproduced below: "2. It has been the contention of the appellant that sale of food is being charged separately by them and on which they are discharging the VAT liability and the activity of the sale of food by no stretch of imagination can be called as a service. It has also be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s own case vide Final Order No. 56060/2016 dated 23-12-2016 has allowed the benefit of notification no. 12/2003-ST 5. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellant". 26.2 We find that the above decision is in consonance with the legal position in this case. We also find that not only the supply of food has been segregated but also appellants have discharged VAT tax on such food component and have also paid service Tax on Mandap keeper charges extracted from the parties and paid service tax on it. The constraint of separate contract emphasized in impugned order remains of no legal consequence, when supplier of se....