9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is for providing catering services in the factory premises of M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. and the claim of the appellant that appellant was not acting as an outdoor catering cannot be accepted. According to Clause 76(a) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 outdoor caterer means a caterer engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place. Therefore the classification adopted by the Revenue is correct. The contract between the two parties does not provide that appellant will act as a pure agent. In fact, there is clear finding of the lower authorities that appellant received not only the wages but additional margin for the wages and further a lump sum amount for acting as a contractor have been made. In such circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose agreement provided for appointment of Cook and Asst. Cook and helpers, etc. for which the appellant was paid the wages of the staff and a margin against the wages and also a lump sum amount. This would show that the agreement is for providing catering services in the factory premises of M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. and the claim of the appellant that appellant was not acting as an outdoor catering cannot be accepted. According to Clause 76(a) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 outdoor caterer means a caterer engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place. Therefore the classification adopted by the Revenue is correct. 3.2 Coming to the second issue as to whether the appellant can be considered a pure agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the fact that agreement itself provided that service tax will be extra and further the appellant did not follow any procedure and did not file the returns, we cannot say that extended period could not have been invoked. 4. In the result, we are unable to consider any of the submissions made by the appellant favourably. Therefore, the demand for service tax is upheld. As regards penalty, we find that the lower authorities have not extended the benefit of 25% of penalty if entire amount of service tax and interest thereon is paid and penalty to the extent of 25% is deposited within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Therefore we consider it appropriate that appellant deserves an opportunity to deposit the entire amount of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
