Any decisions of SC after the judgement of Bombay High court

[pawansingla]

What is the status in the Apex court .
2006 (4) S.T.R. 183 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha and J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
C.K.P. MANDAL
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV
Central Excise Appeal No. 76 of 2005, decided on 25-4-2006
Mandap keeper - Taxable service - Mandap keeper, the appellant according monopoly right to caterer for providing catering and decorative services to hirer - Such services provided to hirer by caterer only and not by appellant - Consideration received by appellant from caterer for giving him monopoly rights not the gross amount charged by appellant from hirer and not liable to Service tax - Sections 65(22), (54), (55), (90)(m) of Finance Act, 1994. - The taxable service in relation to the use of mandap (as defined) is the service to the hirer. The charges received from the hirer in relation to the use of mandap including the facilities provided to the hirer in relation to such use is taxable service. If the appellant renders service as a caterer to the hirer, then such service is a taxable service. By entering into the two agreements with Saideep Caterers and giving them the monopoly to provide for catering and decoration to the hirer of the halls, cannot be said to be providing the service by the appellant to the hirer as a caterer. The appellant is not providing any direct or indirect service of any food, edible preparation, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or crockery and similar articles or accoutrements to the hirer so as to fall within definition of 'caterer' under Section 65(22). It is not the case of the Revenue that for the catering services provided by Saideep Caterers, the charges are received from the hirer by the appellant. The consideration received by the appellant from Saideep Caterers for giving them monopoly rights for rendering the services for catering and decoration to the hirer is not the amount received by the appellant from the client (hirer). The amount so received is from the third party (Saideep Caterers). There is no relationship of 'mandap keeper' and the 'client' between the appellant and Saideep Caterers. Section 67 says that the valuation of taxable service for charging service tax shall be the gross amount charged by such mandap keeper from the client (hirer) for the use of mandap. The consideration received from Saideep Caterers for giving monopoly rights is not the gross amount charged by the appellant from the hirer. [paras 13, 15]
Appeal allowed