9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvention' service. Service tax demand of Rs. 1,98,038/- is confirmed and ordered to be recovered along with interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. 2. The appellant was registered for providing Mandap Keeper service and was filing returns under that category. The period in issue is 24.7.2001 to 10.6.2004. For services provided during this period, the petitioner was remitting service tax under 'Mandap Keeper' category after availing abatement during the period 20.12.2001 to 9.7.2004, in terms of exemption Notification No.12/2001-ST dated 20.12.2001. 3. Proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice dated 3.1.2006, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a caterer, as the taxable service. 6. On the other hand, 'convention' is defined in Section 67 (32) as a formal meeting or assembly which is not open to the general public but including a meeting or assembly, the principal purpose of which is to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation. Convention service is enumerated as a taxable service in Section 65(105)(zc) of the Act; as any service provided or to be provided to any person in relation to holding of a convention in any manner. 7. Prima facie, for falling under ambit of 'convention' and for classification as a provider of convention service it is not a legislated ingredient that the service (provided by one person to another in relation to holding of a convention no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation is not justified and that having regard to the ambiguity between the scope of the two taxable services, it would be illegitimate to allege suppression of facts or an intention to evade taxes. We also notice that neither the show cause notice, the primary authority nor the Appellate order had alleged or concluded that renting the appellant's Banquet Hall to pharmaceutical, insurance and other companies was for holding formal meetings or assembly which is not open to the general public, the specific ingredients for a transaction to fall within the ambit of 'convention', defined in Section 65 (32) of the Act. 10. On the aforesaid analysis and in the light of judgments of this Tribunal (referred to), we are satisfied tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
