Judgment :-

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The common Petitioner in these three cases is engaged in supply of food and beverage to Air Companies for in flight service to passengers. Exhibit P4 under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 8238/2005 is issued by the Central Excise Department holding that petitioner is liable to get registered and pay service tax under Ss.65 & 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004, which among other things provides for service tax for the service rendered by outdoor caterers.

2. I heard Sri. P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. John Varghese, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents.

3. ‘Service Tax’ was introduced on outdoor caterers by Finance (No.2) Act of 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004. Since petitioner is engaged in supply of food and beverages to Air Companies for service to passengers on board flights the Central Excise Department demanded service tax from the petitioner. Petitioner is challenging the impugned notices on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax. It is to be noted that there is no challenge against the constitutional validity of the provisions of law authorizing levy of service tax on outdoor caterers, probably the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the constitutional validity because in the decision in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. v. Union of India reported in (2004 (167) ELT (SC)), the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions authorizing “Service Tax” tax on Mandap keepers and Outdoor Caterers. Therefore, the short question to be considered in these cases is whether the impugned orders directing registration and demanding service tax for service rendered by the petitioner is tenable or not.

4. Since the claim of the petitioner has to be considered with reference to the statutory provisions, reference has to be first made to the definition clauses contained in S.65 of the Finance Act 1994 as amended. The relevant clauses are extracted herein-below:

“65(24). “caterer” means any person who supplies, either directly or indirectly, any food, edible preparations, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or crockery and similar articles or accoutrements for any purpose or occasion”.

“65(76A). “outdoor caterer” means a caterer engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place other than his own (but including a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving such services)”.

5. Petitioner is admittedly engaged in supply of food and beverages to Air Crafts for service to the passengers on board. Counsel for petitioner submitted that supply of food and beverages will attract liability for service tax only when such supplies are made at a place other than normal business premises of the party and such supplies should be for a specific purpose or occasion. According to the counsel, transactions that attract service tax are supplies outside for any purpose or occasion like marriage, birth-day etc. The petitioner’s case is that petitioner’s supply of food and beverages are on regular basis and petitioner’s is not a case of supply for any specific purpose or occasion. I am unable to accept this contention because the “purpose” or “occasion” referred to in the definition clause extracted above, refers to the customer. In other words, supply or service is to meet any purpose of the customer or for any occasion arising to the customer. There is nothing to’ indicate in the definition clause that such “purpose” or “occasion” should be rare or occasional and should not be frequent or even regular. Service of food and beverages to passengers during flight is the purpose for which Air Companies take the supplies from the petitioner. Petitioner admittedly supplies the items on Board Flights. So much so the activity of the petitioner squarely falls within the definition clause contained in S.65(