9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.K.Jaiswal, SDR ORDER Per Mathew John: When the case was called none was present to represent the Respondent. On past many occasions also the Respondent was not present. There is a letter dated 20-01-11 from Respondent on file stating that they have not received copy of the appeal. The letter also states that the Order-in-Appeal states all the reasons why the Appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable. The letter also states it is too costly to appear for personal hearing in Delhi and the case may be decided on the basis of facts available on records. So we have taken up the case for decision and has gone through the records with the help of Ld. DR. 2. The Respondent is a partnership firm. The respondent had taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual invoices submitted by the Respondent and found that some bills were raised for Trade Fair/Exhibition and training. He held that such activities cannot be considered as business function and held that for a total value of Rs. 1705760 realised for such functions, service tax is not payable. In this matter he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CCE reported at 2004 (164) ELT 163- (Tri-Del). 5. Further he found that on some occasion the facility was rented out for events like dance, drama, music, training, conference of club members etc and he held that such events can not considered to be social functions in view of Tribunal s decision in Rangamandira Trust Vs. CCE-2006 (1) ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E-2006 (4) STR 44 (Tri. - Del.) 10. Similarly the Tribunal had considered the issue whether conducting dance programmes will be covered by the entry for Mandap Keeper in the following cases: (i) Secretary, Town Hall Committee Vs. CCE- 2007 (8) STR 170 (Tri. - Bang.) (ii) ADA Rangamandira Trust Vs. CCE 2007 (6) STR 381 (Tri. - Bang.). 11. The decision relied upon by the Appellant reported at 2006 (1) STR 30 was at stay stage. The matter has been finally disposed under the decision reported at CCE2007 (6) STR 381 (Tri. - Bang.), holding that the organizing dances is a social function and is covered by the entry for Mandap Keeper. In an appeal against this decision the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision on taxability as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
