2018 (5) TMI 977 - AT - Service Tax

Review order - time limitation - Mandap Keeper Service - Held that - Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that no order under this Section shall be passed after the expiry of two years from the date on which the order sought to be revised has been passed - the Order-in-Original was passed on 11/05/2005 as mentioned in the said order whereas the review order was passed on 28/06/2007 which is after the expiry of two years from the Order-in-original which is not legally sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of service tax provisions by rendering Mantap Keeper services without registration and payment of service tax, legality of the review order passed by the Commissioner beyond the statutory time limit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner, where the appellants were found to be providing Mantap Keeper services without registration and payment of service tax, which violated the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the proceedings initiated in the show-cause notice, but a review order was later passed by the Commissioner, stating that the amount received for marriage ceremonies is taxable under Mantap Keeper service as marriage is not considered a religious function. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the review order was passed beyond the statutory time limit of two years from the Order-in-Original, as per Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant also contended that during the relevant period, marriage was considered a religious function, not a social function, citing relevant legal precedents.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized that the impugned order by the Commissioner was legally unsustainable as it contravened the statutory provisions, specifically Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994. The counsel argued that since the review order was passed after the expiry of two years from the Order-in-Original, it was not legally tenable. Additionally, the appellant's counsel asserted that the appellant had a strong case on merit, highlighting the historical perspective that considered marriage as a religious function during the relevant period. Legal precedents such as Hotel President Planet Vs. CCE, Indore and CCE Vs. Krishnapur Mutt were cited to support the appellant's arguments.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Commissioner contended that the appellant lacked merit in their case and distinguished the legal precedents cited by the appellant, referring to a decision by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-ll Vs. Central Panchayat. After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal found that the review order passed by the Commissioner was indeed beyond the statutory time limit specified in Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant solely on this ground, without delving into the merits of the case. The review order dated 28/06/2007 was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was upheld based on the statutory time limit violation, thereby concluding the matter.