9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ' the appellant is clearly entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Accordingly, the demand in the present case is not sustainable.' Conclusion - The exemption of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is clearly admissible to the appellant as the canteen services were provided within the factory premises covered by the Factories Act, 1948. The impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Jigar Shah with Shri Amber Kumrawat, Advocates appeared for the Appellant Shri Himanshu P Shrimali, Superintendent(AR) appeared for the Respondent ORDER These two appeals are filed against the Order in Appeal having number VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-86-2019-20 dated 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eating joint or a mess, other than those having the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating in any part of the establishment, at any time during the year; 19A. Services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), having the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating at any time during the year; 3.1 We find that the identical issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in case of Matashree Hospitality Services reported in 2024-TIOL-921-CESTAT-AHM wherein it is observed as under: 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that in the impugned order the benefit of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erages; 20 to 36 . .. 3. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2012. [Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012] From the plain reading of the above notification, it is nowhere indicated that which person will get the exemption. It is predominantly the service of Food and Beverages by a canteen is exempted irrespective of the fact that who is running the canteen. The only condition is that such canteen should be operated within the premises of the factory as per Factory s Act, 1948 which is not in dispute. Therefore, the exemption of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is clearly admissible to the appellant. As it is the appellant who run the canteen in the factory which is covered by Factory s Act, 1994. This issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9A of the Negative List and exempted from payment of Service Tax. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order is set-aside. 5. In view of the above decision which was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the observation made by us hereinabove, the appellant is clearly entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Accordingly, the demand in the present case is not sustainable. Hence the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed. 3.2 Further, it can be seen from the above that this Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of ICS Food Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (7) TMI 1061 CESTAT Allahabad which in turn affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2019 (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
