V.P. KHADER Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Excise appeal has been filed raising several questions of law. The facts to be noticed are that the appellant was a contractor conducting a canteen in the premises of M/s. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. The appellant was assessed for various periods under the Finance Act, 1994, holding the services extended by the appellant to be "out-door catering services". The appellant asserted that there was no out-door catering carried on. On a contract awarded for running a canteen for employees, the premises of M/s. HNL was handed over to the appellant wherein he cooked food and served it to the employees.

(2.) Five assessment orders were passed against the assessee, against which appeals were filed as is seen from Annexure B. The Commissioner of Central Excise, the First Appellate Authority refused to consider one of the appeals for reason of it being delayed. The other appeals which were filed in time were considered and the appellant's case accepted. The Department has not challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority. Finding one of the appeals to be delayed, the same was rejected by the First Appellate Authority, against which the appellant approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal, against which the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The question of law according to us, arising from the order of the Tribunal is as follows: Whether the assessee could be made liable to tax or demand raised; since the assessee was not carrying on a taxable service and in the assessee's own case, the First Appellate Authority had found the assessee to be not engaged in out-door catering services, which finding of the First Appellate Authority has been accepted by the Department?