2015 (6) TMI 739 - AT - Service Tax

Outdoor catering service - whether the appellant during the relevant period 10.9.2004 to 31.7.2009 would be covered under the service tax net under the category of outdoor catering service or otherwise - Held that - A person who supplies directly or indirectly any food, edible preparations, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or crockery and similar articles or accoutrements for any purpose of occasion, is a caterer . - Appellant is a separate entity in the eyes of law and engages various persons for preparation of food, though, in the premises of their client and also engages different personnel for serving the food. This would indicate that the appellant has not engaged himself in preparing food and serving the same to the employees of Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., though the employees of Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., are the members of the appellant co-operative society. On perusal of the agreement entered by the appellant with Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., we find that Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., had decided to engage specialized services in respect of catering services for their employees and appellant s credential was considered, having demonstrated their expertise in the said activity with their own trained personnel and having offered to undertake the activities relating to the catering service on contract basis, contract was awarded to appellant. On such clear-cut preamble to the contract entered by the appellant with Alfa Laval ((India)) Ltd., appellant cannot claim that they are not provider of the catering service. - reason to interfere with the impugned order. The first appellate authority has already set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant and the Revenue is not in appeal against such order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is upheld - Decision in the case of Indian Coffee Workers Co-op Society Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI followed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant's services of running a canteen fall under "Outdoor Catering Service" for the period in question.

Analysis:

The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal regarding the appellant, a cooperative society, providing canteen services at a client's factory premises. Revenue authorities categorized the services as "Outdoor Catering Service" from 2004 to 2009. The appellant argued that they were only preparing food, with the client providing necessary items and facilities. The adjudicating authority upheld the tax liability and penalties, which the first appellate authority confirmed, except for the penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The key issue was whether the appellant's activities constituted "Outdoor Catering Service." The appellant contended they were merely preparing food, not providing catering services. The definition of "caterer" and "outdoor caterer" under relevant sections of the Finance Act were crucial in determining the applicability of service tax. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the appellant and the client, which clearly outlined the responsibilities of the appellant in providing catering services.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, as a separate entity, engaged individuals for food preparation and serving. The agreement demonstrated the appellant's expertise in catering services, leading to the conclusion that they were indeed providing catering services. The first appellate authority's findings supported this view, emphasizing the contractual obligations of the appellant in providing catering services, thus making them liable for service tax.

The Tribunal also referenced a previous judgment involving a cooperative society providing similar services, further solidifying the classification of the appellant's activities as taxable under "Outdoor Catering Service." The Tribunal distinguished another case where the appellant was directly involved in food preparation, unlike the current scenario where the appellant employed individuals for these tasks.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, noting that the penalties had already been set aside by the first appellate authority. The decision was based on the appellant's contractual obligations and the clear provision of catering services, leading to the rejection of the appeal.