CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Surinder Kumar Mittal
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh
STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/532 of 2011-cus
APPLICATION NO. ST/STAY/3311 of 2011
APPEAL NO. ST/1574 of 2011
APRIL 19, 2012
Mathew John, Technical Member
The appellants are providing catering services. For the period September 07 to March, 08, Revenue made out a case that they were not eligible for the exemption for small service providers as per Notification No. 6/05-ST as amended by Notification No. 4/07-ST in as much as they had crossed the value of Rs. 8 lakhs during the period September 2007 to March, 2008.. The Counsel for the appellant submits that for the purpose of calculation, Revenue is taking into account the entire receipts of the appellants whereas the taxable value should be taken after allowing abatement of 50% in terms of Notification No. 1/-90ST and once only taxable value is taken into account, the turnover is below the value as laid down in the small scale notification and they were eligible for exemption. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the show-cause notice but Revenue filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand.
2. Opposing the plea, learned DR submits that the taxable value should be the value received by the appellants and not the value after abatement as per Notification No. 1/06-ST. Further he says that the abatement of 50% of value is available only when substantial and satisfying meal is served in view of the Explanation in the Notification and the appellants were serving tea and snacks also and therefore, the abatement cannot be given.
3. We have considered the Notification No. 1/06-ST. We find that there is provision in the Notification to the effect that value of services exempted by other Notification should not be taken into account for calculating the aggregate value under Notification No. 4/07-ST. The argument that they were providing only tea and snacks and such items were not substantial and satisfying mean also to be misplaced because the canteen was operated for providing meals to employees of AIL and tea and snacks were only items served at times intervening between that for substantial meals and that was not the main service provided.
4. So we find prima facie strong case in favour of the appellants. Therefore, we waive the pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order and stay collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal.