9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent : Shri M A Nyalkalkar, Adv. PER : P R Chandrasekharan Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/392/2005 dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-II. 2. The respondent M/s Central Panchyat owned a hall. The said hall was rented out for conducting marriages and consideration was collected for such renting. The department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue is before us. 3. The argument of the Revenue is that marriage is a 'social function' and not a 'religious function'. As regards the reliance placed on the Krishnapur Mutt case, the Revenue submits that in that case the Mandap was let out free of cost and, therefore, the ratio of the said decision does not apply. 4. Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue while reiterating the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically provide for marriage to be considered as a 'social function' for the purposes of levy of Service tax. Therefore, marriage has to be considered as a religious function only prior to 2007 and not otherwise. The explanation added in Finance Act, 2007 has only the prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively. It is also his contention that even if it is held that the marriage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucting the marriages either by following religious rituals or otherwise does not make marriage a 'religious function'. Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gujarati samaj Bhavan (supra), we hold that the marriage is a social function and not a religious function. 6.2 The explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2007 is only by way of abundant caution. Therefore, ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the modification that the demand is sustainable only for the normal period of limitation. Needless to say the respondent is liable to pay interest on the Service Tax demand. Imposition of penalty is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Revenue is directed to re-compute the Service Tax demand. Since the appellant has not collected the Service Tax separately, the amount received shall be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
