2012 (7) TMI 194 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper services - abatement of the value of the food provided - denial of benefit of Notification No.1/2006 - Held that - Since the aspect that whether any CENVAT Credit is availed by appellant of any services, input or capital goods, required for rendering the services of Mandap keeper has not been verified. Therefore, matter remanded back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax
2. Eligibility for availing benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST for abatement of food value
3. Verification of CENVAT Credit availed for Mandap Keeper services

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The amounts in question were Rs.1,77,587/- and Rs.2,95,072/- with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue revolved around the appellant's eligibility for availing the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST for a 40% abatement of the food value provided for services rendered under Mandap Keeper services. The first appellate authority upheld the amounts due, citing the appellant's ineligibility for the said benefit. However, the Tribunal found the issue to be in a narrow compass and decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement, proceeding to take up the appeal for disposal.

The appellant's counsel argued that they had indeed availed the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST for the Mandap Keeper services without utilizing CENVAT Credit of input/capital goods or input services during the relevant period. The Tribunal noted the need to verify whether the appellant had refrained from availing CENVAT Credit for the services provided and the amounts utilized for discharging Service Tax from their CENVAT account. The proviso attached to the notification stipulated that the appellant should not have taken credit on input or capital goods of the Service Tax paid on input services used for providing the taxable service. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying these factual aspects from the records, suggesting that the adjudicating authority should conduct a thorough examination.

Ultimately, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh reconsideration of the issue after ensuring the principles of natural justice were followed. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further examination.