2025 (1) TMI 223 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of exemption from payment of Service tax under Sr. No. 19 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and amended from time to time - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The identical issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in case of MATASHREE HOSPITALITY SERVICES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, VADODARA-II 2024 (8) TMI 1507 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it is observed that ' the appellant is clearly entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Accordingly, the demand in the present case is not sustainable.' Conclusion - The exemption of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is clearly admissible to the appellant as the canteen services were provided within the factory premises covered by the Factories Act, 1948. The impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Appellant is eligible to claim exemption from Service Tax under Sr. No. 19 or Sr. No. 19A of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as amended.
Whether the denial of exemption by the revenue authorities was justified.
Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked by the revenue in this case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption under Mega Exemption Notification

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST, specifically Sr. No. 19 and 19A, provides exemptions for services related to serving food or beverages by a canteen in a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Matashree Hospitality Services, where it was established that the exemption is available to the service of food and beverages by a canteen, irrespective of who operates the canteen, as long as it is within the factory premises.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellant operated the canteen within the factory premises, which is covered under the Factories Act, 1948.
Application of law to facts: Given that the Appellant's services were provided within the factory premises, the Tribunal concluded that the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST is applicable.
Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the exemption applies only if the factory itself runs the canteen. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on precedent that the exemption applies regardless of whether the canteen is run by the factory or an external contractor.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant is entitled to the exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The extended period of limitation can be invoked in cases of suppression, willful misstatement, or fraud.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the issue pertains to the interpretation of an exemption notification, which does not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation.
Key evidence and findings: There was no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the Appellant.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that mere interpretational issues do not warrant the extended period of limitation.
Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's argument for invoking the extended period was dismissed due to the lack of evidence of any malfeasance by the Appellant.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation is not applicable in this case.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal emphasized that "the exemption of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is clearly admissible to the appellant" as the canteen services were provided within the factory premises covered by the Factories Act, 1948.
The Tribunal held that "the demand in the present case is not sustainable" and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.
The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that interpretational issues do not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

The judgment concludes with the Tribunal setting aside the Orders in Appeal and allowing the appeals, granting the Appellant the exemption from Service Tax as per the Mega Exemption Notification. The Tribunal's decision is based on the interpretation that the exemption applies to the service of food and beverages provided within factory premises, irrespective of whether the canteen is operated by the factory or an external contractor.

← Previous Next →