9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax as in such cases there is no service element and only a mere sale of food. Taking into consideration the terms of agreement, activities of the appellant and CBEC Circular dated 24.09.1997 referred by Original Authority, Original Authority's order needs to be restored, since the same is sustainable - appeal allowed. - ST/60779/2013-CU[DB] - A/70447/2018 - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - Mrs, Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Sumit Wadhva (Advocate), Shri Devang Bhasin (Advocate) - for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripahti (AC) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.07-ST/LKO/2013 dated 11.09.2013 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the tiffin supply period. The food was supplied @ ₹ 1700/- per tiffin per month or ₹ 1870/- per tiffin per month as the case may be agreed upon in the agreement. The circular no.332/82/97-TRU dated 24.09.1997 also clarifies that sale of food across the counter, as in fast food joints/restaurants or serving of foods in a restaurant/ hotels do not fall within the ambit of outdoor catering, nor does mere free delivery (or delivery at a nominal cost to cover transportation charges) of food by a fast food joint, restaurant etc. shall be subject to Service Tax as in such cases there is no service element and only a mere sale of food. The supply of food in Tiffin by the party to the institute may be termed as sale of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the rule. 3. In view of the above findings the Original Authority dropped the demand. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned Order-in-Appeal has set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 02.09.2011 and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of equal amount. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that in many other cases under similar circumstances adjudication order passed were not reviewed and in their case the order passed by Original Authority was reviewed by Revenue. Further he relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in the case of Berg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
