2009 (3) TMI 376 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 14/2003 Mandap keeper service - Their only contention of revenue is that marriage hall is not within the temple premise, but it is in the temple s property, for which they relied upon the dictionary meaning of precinct . - Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned order has come to a conclusion that marriage hall is within the precincts of the temple. - we find from the photographs that the entire temple complex and marriage hall is enclosed by a boundary wall to indicate that entire property is within the temple premises of the trust - On perusal of Notification No.14/2003, we find that the said notification exempted the taxable services provided by a Mandap keeper for the use of the precincts of a religious place as Mandap, from the service tax leviable there on. In our view, the services provided by the respondent, before us, will clearly get the benefit of Notification No.14/2003, for the simple reason that the marriage hall is within the precincts of a religious place i.e. temple.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore issued a judgement in the case of a revenue appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The case involved a Mandap keeper who collected catering charges for services provided to clients at a religious place. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand for service tax, which was later remanded back to determine if an exemption could be granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the current appeal.

The Revenue argued that the Mandap was not within the precincts of the temple and therefore not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 14/2003. They contended that the Mandap was a commercial concern, not a charitable or religious society. The Respondent, on the other hand, cited previous Tribunal decisions and submitted that the Mandap was within the temple premises and thus qualified for the exemption.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including photographs, and concluded that the Mandap was indeed within the temple precincts and eligible for the exemption. They found that the Revenue did not dispute the temple's location within the precincts and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The judgement was pronounced in open court.