RAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 101 (GRM)ST/JPR -1/2006 dated 22.11.2006.

(2.) WE have heard both the sides.

(3.) 1. The learned Chartered Accountant submitted that the appellant had no premises of their own from where business was being run; however, they were undertaking the service activity only at the premises of M/s EID Parry, Alwar; that the premises were not given to them on rent; the subsidy involved in supply of the food items was being compensated by the company; the premises provided by the company for rendering the services should be treated as "their own" (i.e. appellant's) for the limited purpose of the definition of 'Outdoor Catering Services'. He also drew our attention to the definitions of 'Caterer' and the 'Outdoor Catering Services' which was amended on 16.6.2005. He is not disputing the tax liability as outdoor catering service with effect from 16.6.2005 after the amendment to the said definition. He submits that for the earlier period, in as much as, they were not having any other premises of their own other than the premises of M/s EID Parry, Alwar, they should be treated as not rendering outdoor catering services.