2009 (9) TMI 114 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of Service Tax has arisen on the ground that the appellant had provided service of business exhibition - It is his submission that the applicant has not provided any direct service to any one but had leased out the space to the person who made the highest bid. He would submit that the services rendered would not all under the category of business exhibition service . - Commissioner as the Revisionary Authority has come to the conclusion that the services of business exhibition can be provided indirectly through an agent, which is, what the appellant has done in this case - We are of the considered view that leasing stalls and land will not fall under the category of business exhibition services as held by the ld. Commissioner as the Revisionary Authority - applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Demand of Service Tax on business exhibition services under Section 65(19a) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of Service Tax on business exhibition services provided by the appellant under Section 65(19a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the proceedings initiated by a show cause notice, but the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Mysore, as the revisionary authority, issued another show cause notice disagreeing with the original decision. The Commissioner concluded that the services provided fell under Section 65(19a) and confirmed the demands for Service Tax, interest, and penalty.

The appellant, through their Chartered Accountant, argued that they merely leased out stalls in an exhibition ground without providing direct services, contending that their activities did not qualify as 'business exhibition services.' On the other hand, the Departmental Representative highlighted that the stalls were constructed at the exhibition ground and various services were provided to participants, emphasizing that the appellant regulated entry, provided facilities, and charged Service Tax on amounts received from leasing stalls.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant indirectly provided business exhibition services through leasing stalls, acting as an agent. However, it was noted that the leasing of stalls and land did not squarely fit within the definition of 'business exhibition services' as determined by the Commissioner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit amounts. As a result, the application for the waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.