2016 (2) TMI 872 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper services - Valuation - inclusion of catering charges - Held that - the appellant s claim that the entire charges relating to buffet dinner should be excluded from the assessing value in terms of notification No.12/2003-ST is clearly not sustainable. However, it is also a fact that when the cost of food is included in the overall charges recovered by the appellant which included hall rent and buffet dinner charges it is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2001-ST as amended by Notification No.8/2004-ST and the Commissioner has extended the said benefits and allowed abatement of 40% on the gross value charged by the appellant - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand along with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and Notification No.12/2001-ST.
3. Applicability of taxable service definition under section 65 (105) (m) ibid.
4. Consideration of the judgment in the case of Sky Gourmet (P) Ltd. Vs. CST [2009 (14) STR 777 (Tri.-Bang)].

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Revision confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 2,94,502 along with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The primary adjudicating authority had initially dropped the demand, citing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, which excluded catering charges from the assessable value. However, the Commissioner reviewed the order and held that catering charges were not entirely excludable, allowing only a 40% abatement under Notification No.12/2001-ST, as amended by notification No.8/2004-ST.

2. The appellant contended that it had separately shown hall rent and buffet dinner charges in its bills, paying service tax under "Mandap Keeper" service on the hall rent. It argued for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST for buffet dinner charges, citing the judgment in the case of Sky Gourmet (P) Ltd. Vs. CST [2009 (14) STR 777 (Tri.-Bang)]. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of "Mandap" and "Mandap keeper" under section 65 (66) and 65 (67) ibid, along with the definition of taxable service under section 65 (105) (m) ibid. It concluded that the catering provided by the appellant, along with the mandap use service, fell within the scope of taxable service. The Tribunal noted that the charges for buffet dinner included not only food but also related services, making the appellant's claim for full exclusion under Notification No.12/2003-ST unsustainable. However, the appellant was entitled to a 40% abatement on the total charges.

4. The Tribunal distinguished the judgment in the case of Sky Gourmet (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, stating that it pertained to outdoor catering service, not applicable in the current scenario. The appellant's attempt to deduct the entire buffet charges under Notification No.12/2003-ST was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.