2008 (8) TMI 257 - AT - Service Tax

Notification No. 21/97 was issued when the services of mandap keepers was taxable and when outdoor catering services was not in the service tax net - amendment prescribing the condition that they could not avail the benefit of 21/97 notification in the event of availing notification No. 12/2003 came to be introduced later w.e.f. 10-9-2004 - inasmuch as the applicant is billing separately for the food and drinks, they may not, prima facie, satisfy one of the conditions of Notification No. 21/97 and, therefore, there may not be a choice for them between notifications 21/97 and 12/2003 prima facie case in their favour stay granted

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 21/97 vs. Notification No. 12/2003 for service tax exemption in the case of a hotel providing banquet hall services and food/drinks.

Analysis:
The case involved a hotel providing banquet hall services and food/drinks, claiming service tax exemption under Notification No. 12/2003. The original authority rejected the claim, citing Notification No. 21/97 specific to mandap keepers, imposing a service tax demand of Rs. 58,79,296 and penalties. The advocate argued for the applicability of both notifications, citing Supreme Court decisions in support. The Departmental Representative contended that the specific exemption for mandap keepers under Notification No. 21/97 should prevail.

The Tribunal analyzed the issue, noting that Notification No. 21/97 was issued when mandap keepers' services were taxable, while outdoor catering services were not under service tax. The amendment restricting the simultaneous benefit of both notifications came later. Since the applicant billed separately for food/drinks, they might not meet a condition of Notification No. 21/97, leaving no choice between the two notifications. The Tribunal observed that the applicant satisfied all conditions for Notification No. 12/2003, as per the Commissioner's order.

Consequently, the Tribunal found prima facie merit in the applicant's case, staying the recovery of dues until the appeal's disposal. The decision highlighted the historical context of the notifications, the conditions for their application, and the specific circumstances of the applicant's services to determine the appropriate exemption.