9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order does not consider the above aspect, after recording the same. Moreover the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta (2009 (3) TMI 122 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) prima facie seems to apply. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if the appellant is directed to make a pre-deposit the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs as against ₹ 50 lakhs ordered by the tribunal - stay order modified. - Central Excise Appeal (L) No. 270 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and M.S. Sanklecha, J. Shri C. Hari Shankar, for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kantharia with J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER At the request of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... els Pvt. Ltd. In respect of the food prepared and served by the appellant it is Khanna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. which is issuing bills in respect of the food served and the appellant is receiving 75% of the bill amount as a consideration for its activity of preparing and serving food. The appellant specifically contended before the authorities and the Tribunal that apart from the value added tax being paid by Khanna Hotels on the food bills issued by it to its customers, the appellant was also paying value added tax on the food being prepared and served by the appellant to Khanna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The appellant submits that it is only supplying food and was paying value added tax on the entire consideration and in view of the Notification No. 12/2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the said Act, subject to condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials. 2. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2003. 8. Further it is submitted that on merits viz. the appellants are not covered under the category of outdoor catering service is covered by the decision of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (16) S.T.R. 26. In the above case it is submitted that on an identical fact situation it was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
