2014 (8) TMI 296 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Mandap Keeper service - Non inclusion of room rent in assessable value - estimation of room rent - Held that - Room rent is not to be taken as consideration towards Mandap Keeper service. No evidence is produced by the appellants regarding quantum of room rent. The appellants are charging consolidated amount for Banquets Hall and Conference Hall. If a Conference Hall or Banquets Hall is booked by service receiver, how many rooms he has taken on rent is not on record. Whether the rooms were given complimentary or the appellants were separately charging for rooms is also not on record. In previous order, appellants produced certain evidence by way of certificate by the Chartered Accountant. In this case, there is no such evidence produced by the appellants - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand confirmed for Mandap Keeper service.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the demand confirmed by the Revenue, arguing that they operate a Hotel with Banquets Hall and Conference Hall for social functions. They claimed that the charges for renting rooms should not be included in the assessable value for Mandap Keeper service. The appellants relied on previous Tribunal decisions and an adjudication order where only 80% of the total charges were considered as room rent. However, Revenue contended that the appellants did not provide evidence of the quantum of room rent, making the demand valid.

The Tribunal noted the appellants' reliance on the earlier order and Tribunal decisions excluding room rent from Mandap Keeper service consideration. However, the appellants failed to present evidence of the actual room rent charged, as they offered Banquets Hall and Conference Hall for functions at a lump sum. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of proof regarding the number of rooms rented along with the halls and whether the rooms were complimentary or separately charged. Unlike the cases cited by the appellants, no evidence of room rental amounts was provided in this instance, weakening their argument.

Regarding the earlier adjudication order supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, the appellants did not present similar evidence in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, emphasizing the absence of substantial evidence to support the appellants' claims.

*(Dictated in court)*