Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Chandigarh

2015 (9) TMI 163 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Outdoor catering service - Mandap Keeper service - Appellant Institute prepares cooked food as per the fixed menu and supplies the same to various schools for which they received payment at certain rates - appellant were also making available the space in their premises to various persons for their functions - Held that:- Since the appellant are preparing mid day meals in their Institute and not in the schools where the meals are served are not involved in serving of the meals in any manner, in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herefore they will be exempted from service tax. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Stay Application Nos. 51876 & 51923 of 2014 with Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51574 & 51635 of 2014 - Final Order Nos. ST/A/51955-51956/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 15-6-2015 - G Raghuram, President And Rakesh Kumar, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Khanna, CA For the Respondent : B B Sharma, DR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to these appeals and stay applications are in brief as under: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

schools of Chandigarh Administration under the Government scheme. The appellant Institute prepares cooked food as per the fixed menu and supplies the same to various schools for which they received payment at certain rates. The Department was of the view that this activity of the appellant is outdoor catering service taxable under Section 65(105)(zzt) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (77a) and Section 65(24) ibid. Besides this the appellant were also making available the space in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

17.04.2013 were issued to the appellant for demand of service tax amounting ₹ 12,57,899/- for the period from 2011-12 alongwith interest under Section 75 ibid and also for imposition of penalty on them under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 1.2. The above show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner by a common order-in-original dated 06.12.2013 by which while in respect of show cause notice dated 12.03.2012 service tax demand of ₹ 37,38,222/- was confirmed after adjustin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gainst this order of the Commissioner these appeals alongwith stay applications are preferred. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Though, the appeals are listed for hearing of the stay applications only, after hearing the matter for some time, the Bench was of the view that the matter can be heard for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and with the consent of both the sides, the matters are heard for final disposal. 4. Shri Rakesh Khanna, Chartered Accountant, ld. Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n outdoor caterer, that under Section 65(76a) outdoor caterer means any person engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place other than his own but including a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving such services, that under Section 65(24), a 'caterer' means any person who supplies, either directly or indirectly, any food, edible preparations, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or crockery and similar articles or accoutrements for a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nition of mandap keeper, but during the period of dispute their turnover on account of this service is well within the exemption limit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST and that in view of this the demand on account of this service is also not sustainable. It was, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri B. B. Sharma, ld. DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version