2009 (3) TMI 122 - AT - Service Tax

Outdoor canteen service - assessee claims that he is poor and not educated much and that he is not in a position to engage an Advocate and he personally explained his case - entire facilities relating to maintenance of canteen including furniture utensils and also gas electricity have been provided by the company itself - The appellant has engaged himself merely in preparation and serving the food items at the company premises - Held that the activities undertaken by the appellant cannot be held to fall under the category of outdoor catering service demand and penalty set aside.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against service tax order and penalties upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand for service tax and penalties. The appellant claimed inability to afford legal representation due to financial constraints and lack of education, presenting the case personally. The relevant facts revealed that the appellant, under a contract with Eicher Tractors, provided food services on the company's premises, with Eicher Tractors providing all necessary facilities. The original authority classified the appellant as an outdoor caterer, imposing service tax and penalties, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The learned DR for the Department cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support the imposition of service tax on the appellant. However, upon careful examination of the agreement, it was found that Eicher Tractors provided all facilities for the canteen, including furniture, utensils, gas, and electricity. The appellant's role was limited to preparing and serving food items on the company premises. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below failed to appreciate these crucial aspects, leading to an incorrect classification of the appellant's services as outdoor catering. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the Department, emphasizing the unique circumstances.

3. After evaluating the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities did not align with the definition of outdoor catering service. Therefore, the impugned order demanding service tax and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific details of the agreement and the nature of services provided by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of a thorough analysis of the facts in determining the applicability of service tax regulations.