9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri Vikram D Mehta, CA PER : S S Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant-assessee filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Rs.3,51,192/- along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, reduced the penalty by invoking the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recipients are separately donating amounts ranging from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- to the Trust and this amount is not taken into consideration while discharging the Service Tax. The contention is that the amount is in respect of donations and donation cannot be considered as a consideration for providing service of mandap keeper, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The appellant-assessee al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charges. During investigation, it has also come on record that hall is only booked on the condition if the person is willing to pay donation. In these circumstances, the amounts which are received as donation in respect of booking of the hall are to be taken into consideration for arriving at the gross amount received by the appellant-assessee in respect of providing service of mandap keeper. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed after invoking the extended period of limitation hence the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee is dismissed. 8. The Revenue also filed appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs.90,000/- by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance At. Keeping in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
