2019 (4) TMI 1596 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of tax - appellant had crossed the threshold exemption limit in as much as Mandap Keeper Services were not being taken into consideration by them for the purpose of payment of service tax - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the appellant never brought the fact of renting of Mandap to a third person. On the contrary, before both the authorities below, they accepted their tax liability and only sought some time to deposit the same, which, in fact, was also deposited by them - On specifically being asked, learned advocate has not been able to disclose the name of the third person to whom the said Mandap was rented. Apart from that, this being a factual position, cannot be allowed to be raised at the second Appeal stage. Penalty - HELD THAT - Admittedly it is a case of clandestine activity and not a case of any legal interpretation of provisions - Penalties set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Failure to consider 'Mandap Keeper Services' for service tax payment.
2. Initiation of proceedings and issuance of show cause notice.
3. Confirmation of service tax, interest, and penalties.
4. Appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order.
5. Challenge of impugned orders regarding 'Mandap Keeper Services' ownership.
6. Counter-arguments against the appellant's plea.
7. Determination of factual acceptance of tax liability.
8. Rejection of appeals and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided services like 'Mandap Keeper Service', 'Rent-a-Cab Service', and 'Renting of Immovable Property Services'. During a visit by officers, it was discovered that the appellant exceeded the exemption limit by not considering 'Mandap Keeper Services' for service tax payment. Proceedings were initiated through a show cause notice, leading to a demand of approximately &8377;4.41 Lakhs. The appellant did not contest the tax liability during adjudication.

2. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the service tax amount along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77, without imposing a penalty under Section 78. Appeals were filed by both the appellant and the Revenue against this order, which were subsequently rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue's appeal was allowed, resulting in the appellant filing two appeals.

3. The appellant's advocate challenged the orders, claiming that the 'Mandap Keeper Services' were not provided by them but by a third party renting their premises. However, the advocate failed to provide the name of the alleged third party or concrete evidence supporting this claim. The appellant had accepted their tax liability previously, but argued lack of opportunity to present a defense effectively.

4. The Authorized Representative countered the appellant's arguments, emphasizing the lack of contestation of service tax liability at any stage. The claim of renting out the Mandap was deemed a factual issue inappropriate for a second appeal. The Authorized Representative requested the rejection of both appeals.

5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant never raised the issue of renting out the Mandap to a third party. The appellant had accepted the tax liability and only sought time to deposit the amount, which was done. The appellant failed to establish prima facie evidence of leasing the Mandap to a third party. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that the issue of renting out the Mandap could not be raised at the appeal stage.

6. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, citing the appellant's admission of providing 'Mandap Keeper Services' and receiving consideration without paying service tax. The appeals were dismissed, and penalties were upheld due to the clandestine nature of the activity, emphasizing factual circumstances over legal interpretation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each matter, maintaining the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.

← Previous Next →