COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. JYTSNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was providing catering services, acting as outdoor caterers in the premises of various customers.

(2.) The Department collected information that she had provided service to Madhav Institute of Technology & Science, Gwalior (MP) for a gross value of Rs. 7,01,915/ - during the period September, 2005 to October, 2006. However, the respondent had not obtained service tax registration and not paid service tax for such services rendered. Accordingly, a show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 76,580/ - along with interest was issued to the respondent. Further, penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994 were also proposed. The respondent did not furnish any reply to the show cause notice and did not appear for personal hearing. Therefore, adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that she had nothing to represent against the show cause notice and confirmed tax amount of Rs. 76,580/ -. Further a penalty of Rs. 76,580/ - was imposed on the respondent under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent stated that during January 2005 to March, 2006, she had received an amount of Rs. 3,57,507/ - only which is below the limit of Rs. 4 lakhs for the exemption under Notification No. -S.T., dated 1 -3 -2005 (exemption for small units). Similarly, from April 2006 to October, 2006, she submitted that she received only Rs. 2,49,720/ - which is also below the exemption limit of Rs. 4 lakhs. She also pointed out that the definition of "Outdoor Catering Services" was amended only from 16 -6 -2005 to levy tax on services provided from a premises provided by the recipient of the service. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the respondent and allowed consequential relief.

(3.) THE Counsel for the respondent submits that Revenue had not computed the tax liability correctly at all. He submits that Revenue has not considered the abatement in value available for outdoor catering service to the extent of 50% under Notification No. -S.T., dated 1 -3 -2006. However, this contention was not raised before the lower authorities and there is no proof that the payments received from the Institute was for consideration including that for food supplied which is likely to be not the case.