2013 (11) TMI 711 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Mandap keeper service - Held that - Appellant has hired/leased out the premises to Hotel Siddharth in consideration for an interest free deposit of Rs.40 lakhs. The said transaction does not come under the purview of Mandap keeper Service under section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Mandap Keeper means a person who allows temporary occupation of a Mandap for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function - Premises is not given for temporary occupation by Hotel Siddharth. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 11.11.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I.
- Whether the activity of renting out premises constitutes Mandap Keeper Service.
- Validity of the show-cause notice for not quantifying the demand and specifying the period.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The dispute arises from the renting out of premises by M/s Acharya Jialal Vasant Sangeet Niketan to M/s Hotel Siddharth, where an interest-free deposit of Rs.40 lakhs was agreed upon, with Rs.25 lakhs already paid. The department contended that this activity fell under Mandap Keeper Service, demanding Service Tax on the sum received. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the show-cause notice was deficient for not quantifying the demand or specifying the period, rendering subsequent actions invalid. The appellate authority mechanically confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon review, the Tribunal examined the nature of the transaction, emphasizing that Mandap Keeper Service involves temporary occupation of a Mandap for functions. It was observed that the premises were not temporarily occupied by Hotel Siddharth, thus not falling under the definition of Mandap Keeper Service as per section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of the specific characteristics of Mandap Keeper Service, emphasizing temporary occupation as a defining factor.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the interpretation of Mandap Keeper Service in the context of the transaction between the parties. By clarifying that the temporary occupation element was missing in this case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for Service Tax. The case underscores the significance of precise legal definitions and requirements in determining the applicability of tax liabilities, ensuring clarity and adherence to statutory provisions.