2016 (8) TMI 186 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - claim of deduction / abatement of goods involved in catering - Notification No.12/2003-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2003 - Held that - Even today when the matter is heard by Tribunal, nothing came out from the appellant to demonstrate what was the value of the goods used in the catering contract for sale since the copies of the details annexed at page nos. 73 to 79 of the paper book does not reveal any such thing. The bill issued to M/s. Corborundum Hospital Ltd., was a composite bill. There was no scope for the adjudicating authority to appreciate the value of the goods involved in the catering contract. Accordingly, there is no scope to hold that the orders of the authority below suffers from any legal infirmity. Demand of service tax confirmed - however, penalty levied u/s 76 and 78 waived invoking section 80 - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Entitlement to abatement under Notification No.12/2003-Service Tax for catering services.
2. Requirement of adducing evidence of goods sold for claiming abatement.
3. Denial of abatement by adjudicating authority and appellate authority.
4. Confirmation of tax demand based on lack of evidence for goods value in catering contract.
5. Penalty aspect for confusion regarding exemption notification and invocation of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
6. Penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-registration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a caterer, appealed for abatement under Notification No.12/2003-Service Tax. The appellant claimed to have submitted sales tax return copies with necessary details to the adjudicating authority for consideration. However, the claim was denied as the evidence of goods sold, as required by the notification, was not provided. The appellate authority upheld this denial, emphasizing the necessity of documentary evidence of the value of goods sold in catering contracts. The appellant failed to substantiate this requirement, leading to the denial of abatement.

2. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority both considered the appellant's claim for abatement but found it lacking in essential evidence. The appellant's failure to demonstrate the value of goods used in catering contracts, especially in a composite bill scenario, resulted in the denial of the benefit under the notification. The authorities confirmed the tax demand calculated with a 50% abatement as per Notification No.1/2006, as the appellant could not provide sufficient proof of the goods' value.

3. Regarding penalties, the appellant's confusion regarding the applicability of the exemption notification was noted. However, there was no evidence of malafide intent to gain unlawfully. Considering this reasonable cause and the circumstances, section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked to waive penalties under section 76 and 78. Nevertheless, a penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-registration was upheld despite the appeal's partial success.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed only to the extent indicated in the judgment. The miscellaneous application for staying the operation of the order was dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary evidence and complying with legal requirements to claim benefits such as abatement and avoid penalties under relevant tax laws.

← Previous Next →