TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regard appellant claim the benefit of entry 19A of mega exemption Notification as applicable for the service provided during the period January 2013 to March 2016 and did not discharge the liability of Service tax being considered as exempted from payment of service tax by virtue of said Notification. The taxable services in relation to provisions of Outdoor Caterer is defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 and attracting payment of service tax on the provisions of such services. However it is found that there is Exemption vide Entry 19 in the Notification No. 25/2012- ST .dated 20.06.2012 that service provided in relation to serving food or beverages by a restaurant, eating joint or a mess, other than those having the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is partly allowed. - SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10324 of 2022-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. A/11384/2022 - Dated:- 15-11-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Dhruvank Parikh, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. VAD-EXCUSE-002-APP-167-2021-22 dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with service tax Department for providing services namely Outdoor Catering Services . Revenue observed that there is difference of value between the Form 26AS and ST-3 return d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Serial No. 19 which is not the case with the appellant. 4. He also submits that the Factories Act 1948 indicates that a factory having more than 250 workers shall provide and maintain a canteen for giving subsidized foods to workers. In case of Appellant they provided the services to Company to whom the Factories Act, 1948 apply. The finding of impugned order legally not correct, the language used in the aforementioned exemption Notification entry confers the benefit of exemption based on the location of the canteen and not to the operation of the canteen. Accordingly the Canteen Services provided within the factory to which the factories Act, 1948 applies and the provisions of canteen facility is mandatory is exempt irrespective of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be decided in the present matter is whether the service provided by the appellant to their customers (factory) is in nature and scope of outdoor catering services attracting the service tax, as claimed by the department or said services is in nature and scope as described at Sr. No. 19A of the Mega Exemption No. 25/2012 ST dated 17.03.2012 as amended vide Notification No. 14/2013-ST dated 22.10.2013 and therefore exempted from payment of service tax, as claimed by the Appellant. We find that undisputedly facts of the case are that the appellant has been outsourced by various factories for supply of foods and beverages to the employees of factory as per the agreement between them. In this regard appellant claim the benefit of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where provided that canteen maintained by or run by the factory can only be considered for the benefits of such exemption. Therefore the finding of Ld. Commissioner in the impugned matter that services of canteen is provided by the appellant to factory owners and factory owners provided the same to employees and exemption available to main service provider only is not sustainable. Thus, irrespective of the person, who maintains the canteen in a factory, the service tax exemption as per Entry 19A is available to such person and the benefit cannot be restricted to the owner of the factory alone. Also the words used in the above notification are canteen maintained in a factory not by the factory . In the present case as evident from documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|