2009 (5) TMI 156 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper Services - There is no dispute that course rooms and conference halls of the applicants provided to their customers were used for conducting training programmes which prima facie are neither official, social or business function and, therefore, prima facie, the applicants do not fall within the definition of Mandap Keeper - Further during the period in dispute, it was only a commercial concern allowing temporary occupation of a mandap for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function which was liable to service tax as mandap keeper and the definition of mandap keeper has been widened so as to include a non-commercial concern, only w.e.f. 1-5-2006 and prima facie the applicants are a non-profit charitable company, although they were not letting out halls free of cost, in the light of the Tribunal s order in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection v. CST, Mumbai, 2007 - TMI - 2415 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. v. CST, Chennai, 2008 - TMI - 3914 - CESTAT,CHENNAI and Administrative Staff College of India v. CC & CCE, Hyderabad, 2009 - TMI - 32750 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - We also note that, subsequent to 1-5-06, the applicants are registered under the category of convention service providers and discharging service tax liability under that head. - we hold that applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax
2. Interpretation of the term "Mandap Keeper"
3. Applicability of service tax to non-profit charitable companies
4. Relevant case laws and precedents

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 7,73,998/- confirmed against the applicants. The Tribunal considered the penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, in addition to the service tax liability.

2. The key issue addressed was the interpretation of the term "Mandap Keeper" as per Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the services provided by the applicants, focusing on the usage of course rooms and conference halls for training programs. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from precedents where halls were let out for official, social, or business functions, emphasizing the specific criteria for defining "Mandap Keeper."

3. The Tribunal delved into the applicability of service tax to non-profit charitable companies like the applicants. It noted that during the period in dispute, only commercial concerns allowing temporary occupation for official, social, or business functions were liable for service tax as Mandap Keepers. However, the definition was widened post-1-5-2006. The Tribunal considered relevant case laws such as Institute of Banking Personnel Selection v. CST, Mumbai, and others to establish the exemption status of non-profit charitable companies.

4. In citing various case laws like Surat Municipal Corporation v. CCE, Surat, Secretary, Town Hall Committee v. CCE Mysore, and others, the Tribunal built a strong case for the applicants' exemption from pre-deposit of tax and penalties. The judgment highlighted the applicants' registration as "convention service providers" post-1-5-2006 and their compliance with service tax liabilities under that category. The Tribunal ultimately granted unconditional waiver and stayed the recovery of tax and penalties pending the appeal, emphasizing the applicants' strong prima facie case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the thorough consideration of the issues surrounding the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and the nuanced interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai.