2009 (8) TMI 287 - AT - Service Tax

Submission that as regards the Mandap Keeper Services , the demand of service tax is not sustainable as the authority has considered the room rental charges and sale of food under Mandap Keeper Services for the purpose of demand. we find that in respect of the service tax demand on the services of Mandap Keeper , order passed by this Bench, in the case of M/s. Eagleton The Golf Resort would squarely cover the issue in favour your of the applicant. We also find that the Coordinate Bench, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Merwara Estates v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2009 - TMI - 34571 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has given relief to the assessee. - As regards the demand of service tax on Membership of Club or Association Services , we find that the service tax amount sought by the Revenue is in respect of discount which has been offered by the appellant on Membership fee collected by the Hotel. We find that this proposition may be incorrect. As regards the service tax demand on Beauty Treatment and Health & Fitness Services , we find that this is a contentious issue - Considering the fact that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 16.58 lakhs during the pendency of the investigation and keeping in mind the financial hardship, we direct the applicant to pre-deposit further an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- - Balance amount of pre-deposit waived and recovery thereof

Summary

The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore issued a stay petition against the waiver of pre-deposit of various amounts, including service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant excused the service tax demand for 'Mandap Keeper Services', 'Business Support Services', and 'Beauty Treatment and Health & Fitness Services'. The tribunal found in favor of the applicant for the 'Mandap Keeper Services' based on previous rulings. They also granted relief for 'Membership of Club or Association Services', stating that the service tax amount sought by the Revenue was incorrect. Regarding 'Beauty Treatment' and 'Health & Fitness Services', a contentious issue, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit a further amount within a specified time frame. Compliance was required to stay the recovery of the remaining amounts until the appeal was resolved. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. The order was pronounced and dictated in open court.