M/S Shri Sai Caterers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. Service Tax Rules, 1994/252-253/NGP/2011 dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur).

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ======================================================

M/s Shri Sai Caterers Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance: Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for Appellant

Shri S.R. Nair, EO (AR) for Respondent

CORAM: SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing: 29.09.2015

Date of Decision: 29.09.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. Service Tax Rules, 1994/252-253/NGP/2011 dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur.

2. Relevant facts in short are that the appellants are registered under Service Tax for discharge of liability under Outdoor Catering Services. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had also undertaken services of Housekeeping and Cleaning Services under the Annual Maintenance Contract for Guest House as per work order issued by L&T Ltd.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The main issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is liable for abatement of 50% of the gross amount charged by him under the Outdoor Catering Services, though he has been awarded the entire contract of maintenance of guest house which includes the cleaning and housekeeping services.

4.1 We find that the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has come to a conclusion that the value of the contract awarded to the appellant, needs to be bifurcated and tax liability needs to be upheld under the category of cleaning and housekeeping services after denying them benefit of abatement of 50% of the gross value.

4.2 We find that both the lower authorities have mis-directed themselves in the entire case. On a perusal of the records, we find that M/s L&T has issued works order for annual maintenance contract of guest house which included the scope of maintaining the guest house providing the catering as per the terms and conditions. The appellant undisputedly discharged the Service Tax liability on the bills raised by them under the category of outdoor catering services after claiming abatement of 50% of the gross amount as provided. We find that the issue is no more res integra as this Bench in the case of Centre for Development of Advance Computing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune- 2015-TIOL-1642-CESTAT-MUM has held that the Service Tax law, no where states that if two distinct activities are undertaken or provided in a single agreement, they should not be taxed under the same service category. In view of the clear law as has been settled by the Bench, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so.

5. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Sinha

3 Appeal No. ST/335/11