9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficial, social or business function. Board Circular dated 9.7.2001 clarified that the intention is not to charge service tax twice on the same service; if a service provider is already registered as a mandap keeper and is paying service tax, he is not liable to pay service tax again under the category of convention service. This Circular identifies a subtle distinction between official, social or business function which fall within the scope of mandap keeper and a formal meeting which fall within the scope of convention service. We have not fully comprehended the ‘subtle’ distinction clarified by the Board qua this Circular. Be that as it may. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Where a person (service provider) is registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act, alleging that services provided by the appellant were appropriately classifiable under convention service and not Mandap Ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not open to the general meeting/assembly public) should be provided only in /upon immovable property including any furniture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices, 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 that the impugned adjudication order as confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner is not sustainable. The appeal is there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
