2009 (6) TMI 328 - AT - Service Tax

Whether the services provided by the applicant for the business organization for conducting conferences during the period 1-1-02 to 13-7-04 is liable to be charged under service tax as convention services despite the fact that the respondents has taken the registration under Mandap Keeper and filed returns annually. - Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following finding that assessee took registration and was assessed under Mandap Keeper Services for 10 years from 1997 to 2007 and re-classification for past period made without any suppression by assessee what prevented the Revenue from asking for further details as they were aware that the appellant was providing Mandap Keeper services when receipt of payments states as not decaled in ST-3 returns suppression not proved - We do not find anything wrong in the Commissioner s Order as regards the limitation aspect and we hold that the impugned order is correct and legal. - respondents had been availing exemption under Notification No. 12/01, dated 20-12-2001 departmental clarification issued in 2001 that person registered under Mandap Keeper service not required to get registered under Convention service - Board Circular No. 51/13/02, issued on 7-1-2003 holding exemption not admissible in such cases, is applicable with prospective effect and can be relied upon for service tax levy on respondent - Though the circular dated January, 2003 can be brought into effect for the purpose of levy of service tax on the convention services rendered by the respondents, but on the point of limitation we concur with the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, that there was no suppression.

Summary

The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, consisting of Members T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order related to service tax. The case involved the classification of services provided by the respondent as either Mandap Keeper services or convention services. The Revenue contended that the services should be classified as convention services, while the respondent argued they fell under Mandap Keeper services. The investigation revealed that the respondent had stopped paying service tax under the Mandap Keeper category and had availed of an exemption under Notification No. 12/01. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty under convention services, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the appeal.

Regarding the issue of limitation, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no justification for reclassification after six years, as the respondent had been assessed under Mandap Keeper services for a decade. The Revenue's claim of suppression was weak, and the Commissioner's order was deemed correct. On the merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) cited a Board's letter and Supreme Court decisions supporting the appellant's position. The circular dated 2003 was to be applied prospectively, and the appeal was allowed based on limitation grounds. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit. The impugned order was deemed correct and legal, and the appeal was dismissed.