9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In respect of the extended period of limitation, we find that the appellant-assessee never disclosed to the Revenue that they are collecting donations at the time of booking of the hall hence we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed after invoking the extended period of limitation - assessee were following the same practice which was prevalent prior to the introduction of service tax on mandap keeper and it is not the case of the Revenue that the practice was adopted by the appellant-assessee after the introduction of service tax as a mandap keeper, therefore we find that the penalty imposed under the impugned order will meet the ends of justice - Decided partly against assessee. - ST/287, 290/06-Mum - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt 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 also submitted that the demand is made by invoking extended period of limitation as the appellant-assessee were registered with the Revenue in 2001 and filing regularly statutory returns, therefore, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax is not sustainable. The appellant-assessee also submitted that the practice of accepting donation is much prior to the imposition of service tax under the category of mandap keeper hence it canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions at the time of booking of the hall hence 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 the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant-assessee were following the same practice which was prevalent prior to the introduction of service tax on mandap keeper and it is not the case of the Revenue that the practice was adopted by the appellant-assessee after the introduction of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
