9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Notice by the lower authorities directing them to show cause as to why the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 14/2003 should not be denied to them as they are registered under the Service Tax net as a "Mandap Keepers" for use of Mandap. It was noticed by the authorities that the respondent had collected catering charges by providing services to their clients for the functions held at "Dakshina Kannada Mogaveera Mahajana Sangha, Uchila, Udupi" during the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,02,815/- (Rupees One lakh two thousand eight hundred and fifteen only). Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same property in a separate building enclosed within an outer wall separated by internal roads divided by the compound walls etc., is also within the temple precincts and exemption under Notification No.14/2003 dated 20-6-2003 is available to the service provider, as there is nothing in the Notification to treat this as not located within temple precincts. The observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), is factually incorrect as discussed hereunder: The Notification 14/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 clearly provides that "hereby exempts the taxable services provided to any person by a Mandap keeper for the use of the precincts of a religious places as Mandap, from the service tax leviable thereon" under Section 66 of the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that for the grounds mentioned above the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which at Annexure "A" is not valid in law and has to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that their issue now squarely settled by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust v. CCE, Mumbai-I as reported at 2007 (5) S.T.R. 146 (Tri.-Mumbai). He would also submit that the issue is also decided by this very Bench in the case of CCE, Mangalore v. Krishnapur Mutt as reported at 2006 (3) S.T.R.144 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2003 (157) E.L.T.182 (Tri.-Bang.). It is his submission that the temple land is enclosed by a boundary wall and this Mandap is within the precincts of the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this larger boundary. There are internal roads, etc. also dividing the property. The exemption Notification surely requires that Mandap should be located within precincts of the temple. The Adjudicating Authority has treated only the inner enclosure as precincts. I find no apparent reason to uphold this view since the Mandap located in a separate building is within eh outer enclosure encircling the temple property. There is nothing in the Notification to treat this as not located within temple precincts. I am therefore of the view that a Mandap located on the same property in a separate building enclosed within an outer wall is also within the temple precincts and exempted under Notification No. 14/2003 dated 20-6-2003 is available. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
