2017 (9) TMI 1124 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap keeper service - The appellant in their appeal claimed that they have not at all provided Mandap keeper Service - Held that - as already noted the appellant did not dispute they are providing taxable service before the original authority and they have also admitted having collected Service Tax on these services - due to certain objection from accounting department, the reason for which is not recorded, certain amount stands unpaid to the Government - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand and recovery of service tax on letting out parks/spaces.
2. Failure to file periodical returns and deposit collected service tax.
3. Dispute regarding providing Mandap keeper service.
4. Non-payment of remaining service tax amount due to objections from the accounting department.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, regarding the demand and recovery of service tax on letting out parks/spaces to various clients after 01.07.1997. The original authority found the appellant liable for service tax under the category of "Mandap keeper Services" for the period April 2002 to July 2007. It was noted that the appellants did not file periodical returns and failed to deposit the collected tax with the Government. The appellant had partially deposited a sum with the Department, but a further amount remained unpaid due to objections from the accounts department.

2. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the appellant failed to appear in several scheduled hearings, showing a lack of diligence in pursuing their appeal. The Tribunal decided to proceed based on the appeal records and submissions of the Department's representative. The admitted facts of letting out premises for commercial consideration, collecting service tax, and non-payment of the tax were not disputed by the appellant.

3. The appellant claimed in their appeal that they did not provide Mandap keeper service, but the Tribunal found that the appellant had acknowledged providing taxable services and collecting service tax on these services. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had failed to rebut the facts recorded by the original authority with concrete evidence. The remaining service tax amount, which was also sought to be paid, remained unpaid due to objections from the accounting department.

4. Based on the facts established by the original authority and the lack of evidence to challenge them, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by one of the Tribunal members.