2008 (10) TMI 575 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pre-deposit Rs. 89,51,189/- for alleged evasion of Service Tax under the heading of 'Club or Association'.
2. Whether the service rendered to the appellant's own members falls under the category of 'Club or Association' for Service Tax liability.
3. Whether the judgments cited by the appellant in support of their case are distinguishable from the present situation.
4. Whether the demands are time-barred and if the appellant's pre-deposit of Rs. 25,77,217/- is sufficient.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a substantial amount in terms of the Order-in-Original due to alleged evasion of Service Tax under the category of 'Club or Association'. The appellant, a club, had not paid the Service Tax for services provided to its members, leading to the confirmation of the Service Tax after due adjudication.

2. The appellant contested the levy of Service Tax, arguing that services rendered to their own members should not be covered under 'Club or Association'. Citing judgments, the appellant claimed that when services are provided to their own members within their premises, they are not liable for Service Tax. The appellant had already deposited a portion of the amount and requested to consider it as sufficient, stating that they were a non-commercial association.

3. The judgments cited by the appellant were distinguished by the JCDR, emphasizing that the category in those cases was 'Mandap Keeper', unlike the present case under 'Club or Association'. The JCDR argued that the amount deposited was insufficient and further pre-deposit was necessary.

4. The Tribunal observed the contentious nature of the issue and noted the distinction between the cited judgments related to 'Mandap Keeper' services and the current case under 'Club or Association'. While acknowledging the possibility of the appellant falling under the 'Club or Association' category, the Tribunal agreed to consider the plea regarding time-barred demands. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's partial deposit for contesting the case, waived the balance amounts, and stayed the recovery. The appeal was scheduled for an earlier hearing due to high revenue implications, with no recovery during the appeal's pendency and even after 180 days.