2013 (12) TMI 1067 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Event Management and Business Exhibition Service - Remission of tax as per Section 11D - For invoking Section 11D, what is to be determined is whether the person was liable to pay service tax even as per the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant. He has not argued on the issue as to whether he was liable to pay service tax under the category of Event management Service. He has only raised the issue that the show-cause notice states that the Business Exhibition Service was not liable to service tax during the material period - adjudicating authority has given a finding that it was a taxable service under the Event Management Service and, therefore, we do not consider it fit case for full waiver. As such, for admission of the appeal, we direct the applicant to deposit 50% of the service tax demanded - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax on Event Management and Business Exhibition Service.
2. Interpretation of Section 11 D of Central Excise Act.
3. Applicability of tax collection and remittance provisions.
4. Determination of taxable service under "Event Management Service."
5. Conditions for admission of appeal and waiver of dues.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the liability of the applicant to pay service tax on the services provided, namely "Event Management and Business Exhibition Service." The Revenue alleged that the applicant collected service tax on exhibitions but failed to remit it to the treasury, leading to a confirmed amount of Rs.9,24,235.

2. The key contention was the interpretation of Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act. The applicant argued that since they were not liable to pay service tax during the relevant period, Section 11 D cannot be enforced against them. However, the Revenue contended that the applicant was indeed liable to pay tax, as per the adjudication order.

3. The issue of tax collection and remittance was crucial. The Revenue argued that any person liable to pay tax and collecting money in the name of tax must remit it to the treasury. The adjudicating authority determined that the service provided fell under "Event Management Service," making the applicant liable to remit the collected amount.

4. The judgment delved into the determination of the taxable service under "Event Management Service." The adjudicating authority found that the service provided was taxable under this category, leading to the directive for the applicant to deposit 50% of the demanded service tax for admission of the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the judgment outlined the conditions for the admission of the appeal and the waiver of dues. The applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the service tax demanded within a specified period, with the balance of the adjudged dues waived and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Compliance with the order was mandated to be reported on a specific date.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the liability to pay service tax, the interpretation of relevant provisions, and the conditions imposed for appeal admission and dues waiver.