9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1284 - AT - Service TaxClub or Association Services - service charges collected by assessee under the head subscription, affiliation fees, young leader forum - Held that - Section 96J was introduced inserted in the Finance Act, 2011 w.e.f. 08.04.2011 where the services were services were brought under clutches of the Service Tax. Prior to which the Service Tax was not applicable - In the instant case, the period in dispute (16.06.2005 to 31.03.2008) is prior to the introduction of Section 96J. When it is so, then the Service Tax is not applicable in the instant case - appeal allowed. Renting of immovable property services for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2007 - penalty - Held that - an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Arora Products vs Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2008 (3) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR , wherein it was observed that on combined reading of provisions of Sections 11A(2B) and 2(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in view of the fact that duty leviable has already been deposited prior to the show cause notice, no penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC - appeal allowed. Convention/sponsorship charges for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2007 - reverse charge mechanism - Held that - in the impugned order no discussion has been made regarding the nature of the charges. When it is so, then we set aside the impugned order in this regard and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue de novo - matter on remand. Mandap Keeper s Services for the period 01.10.2002 to 31.12.2007 - penalty - Held that - the demand was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice - penalty set aside - appeal allowed. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
Issues involved:
1. Applicability of Service Tax for the period October 2002 to December 2007. 2. Imposition of penalty for renting of immovable property services for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2007. 3. Levy of Service Tax on convention/sponsorship charges for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2007. 4. Disputed penalty for Mandap Keeper's Services for the period 01.10.2002 to 31.12.2007. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original regarding the applicability of Service Tax for the period from October 2002 to December 2007. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the services provided by the assessee-Appellants were not within the scope of Service Tax during the period in dispute. The introduction of Section 96J in the Finance Act, 2011 made the services taxable, but as the period in question predated this amendment, the Tribunal ruled that Service Tax was not applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the claim of the assessee-Appellants was allowed. 2. Regarding the imposition of penalty for renting of immovable property services, the Tribunal referred to a similar case where it was held that if duty leviable had already been deposited before the show cause notice, no penalty could be imposed. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2007. 3. The issue of levy of Service Tax on convention/sponsorship charges for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2007 was raised. The assessee-Appellants argued that the charges should be borne by the sponsors under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, absolving them of the liability to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked discussion on the nature of the charges and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee-Appellants to present their case with additional evidence. 4. Lastly, the disputed penalty for Mandap Keeper's Services for the period 01.10.2002 to 31.12.2007 was addressed. The Tribunal considered the submission that the demand was paid before the show cause notice was issued. Following the precedent set in previous cases, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and modified the impugned order accordingly. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants was partly allowed in the terms mentioned in the judgment.
|
