9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who are using the Mandap - Demand of duty and interest upheld. - Penalty u/s 68 will be 25% if demand deposited within 30 days else the same will be 100% of duty. - 689 of 2007 - ST/117/2011 - Dated:- 29-3-2011 - Ashok Jindal, Mathew John, JJ. For Appellant : Shri Mayank Garg, Adv. For Respondent : Shri Fateh Singh, SDR Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal against the confirmation of demand of Service Tax of Rs.7,18,255/- along with interest and penalties under Finance Act, 1994. The facts of the case are that the appellants are providing services of Mandap Keeper and are paying Service Tax for the said activity. Apart from the Mandap, they are having a parking space for which they are charging separately for us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ap cannot be enjoyed by the clients and it is not the case that the appellants are charging car parking charges from the persons who are parking the cars in that car parking space. It is admitted fact that these parking charges are collected by the appellants from their clients who enjoyed Mandap services. As the said facts have been suppressed by the appellants from the department, the adjudicating authority has rightly invoked the extended period and imposed penalties. Hence the impugned order is to be upheld. 4. Heard and considered. 5. We have gone through the submissions made by both the sides to decide the issue first. We have to examine the definition of the services brought under tax vide sub-section 65 (105) (m) of Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ap. Hence, the facts are distinguishable and the ratio in the case of Merwara Estates is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, reliance placed by the ld. Advocate that they have clearly mentioned the car parking charges in their balance sheet separately which is a public documents and the extended period is not invokable alleging suppression the facts in this case. In this case it was not coming out from the balance sheet whether these car parking charges are collected by the appellants from the same client using Mandap facility or not. Hence, the facts are distinguishable in the case of Martin Harris Laboratories Ltd. (supra). It is admitted by the appellants that due to rush of vehicle the problem of parking is assuming utm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
