2009 (8) TMI 379 - AT - Service Tax

Outdoor caterer s services- Notification No. 12/2003-ST- The appellant has entered into agreement with various airlines for the supply of food and beverages to the Airlines in terms of which the appellant is required to render various activities. The amount of service tax has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is in respect of the services that the appellant provided as Outdoor Catering and is not entitled for the admissible inclusion/exemption and value of the services in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST as claimed by the appellants. In the light of the decision of LSG Sky Chefs (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CST 2008 -TMI - 31076 - CESTAT BANGLORE, in which held that supply of food/beverage to airline would amount to sale of the goods and since assessee had already paid VAT on value of goods thus no service tax levied, Held that- in view of the issue in appellant s own case, settled in their favour, impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-side and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, in the case of M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, considered an appeal against the amounts confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority in 2009. The issue revolved around service tax confirmed for outdoor catering services provided by the appellant, which were not considered eligible for inclusion/exemption as claimed. The period under consideration was from February 2005 to March 2008, during which the appellant had agreements with various airlines for food and beverage supplies, involving multiple activities. The Tribunal noted that an identical issue had been decided in the appellant's favor in the past. The decision highlighted that the appellant was liable for service tax under the 'Outdoor Caterer Services' category, but not on the food and beverages supplied to airlines, as VAT had already been paid on those values. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the original order. The issue in the appellant's case was considered settled in their favor, leading to the appeal's success.