2012 (5) TMI 425 - AT - Service Tax

Whether premises which were used for both Mandap Keeper Services as well as film shooting should not be clubbed together, when the purpose of letting out the premises was different - Held that - appellant has chosen not to adduce evidence its appeal is bound to be dismissed upholding levy of service tax holding that the appellant provided taxable service of Mandap keeper. - Demand of service tax with interest confirmed. Regarding penalty - law was in infancy stage and the appellant could not segregate its receipt under appropriate head. Further the appellant appears to have pursued charitable object in terms of the letter dated 13.12.2003 addressed to the Superintendent. appellant is a small concern and not aware of process of levy may suffer by the order of penalty passed by the appellant authority below. - Penalty waived u/s 80.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to first appellate order upholding adjudication.
2. Clubbing of premises used for Mandap Keeper Services and film shooting.
3. Taxability of Mandap Keeper service.
4. Lack of evidence provided by the appellant.
5. Dismissal of appeal due to failure to adduce evidence.
6. Penalty imposition and charitable purpose justification.
7. Relief granted and partial allowance of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the first appellate order that upheld the adjudication, contending that the premises used for Mandap Keeper Services and film shooting should not be clubbed together as the purposes were different. The appellant argued that Mandap Keeper service, which suffered tax, is distinct from allowing premises for film shooting, which is not taxable under the same category. The appellant claimed that the income earned was utilized for charitable purposes, seeking relief based on a previous Tribunal case.

2. The appellant failed to provide necessary evidence to support its claims, leading to both authorities ruling against the appellant. The absence of evidence hindered the appellant's case, as highlighted in the adjudication order. The appellant expressed willingness to present evidence if the matter was reconsidered, but the tribunal noted the lack of justification for introducing new evidence at the second appeal stage.

3. The tribunal observed that the appellant's case lacked clear evidence compared to the citation provided, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal regarding the levy of service tax for Mandap Keeper services. The decision was based on the appellant's choice not to present evidence, which ultimately upheld the tax liability.

4. Regarding the penalty imposed, the tribunal acknowledged the appellant's limited understanding of the tax laws, considering the appellant's charitable objectives and small-scale operations. Consequently, the tribunal annulled the penalty under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, providing partial relief to the appellant by partially allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the levy of service tax on Mandap Keeper services due to the appellant's failure to provide evidence, while also recognizing the appellant's charitable intentions and lack of awareness regarding tax processes by annulling the penalty imposed. The appeal was partially allowed, granting relief to the appellant in line with the discussed issues and arguments presented during the proceedings.