9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that extended period also is invokable. - entire amount ordered to be deposited - stay denied. As regards renting of immovable property, extended period could not have been invoked since the levy has been regularized by retrospective amendment. Therefore, prima facie, the appellant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax demanded on ‘renting of immovable property se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that certain amounts were received towards rent, on which service tax was not discharged to the extent of ₹ 31,513/- for the period 2006-07 to 2009-10. 2. Proceedings were initiated and demand of service tax of ₹ 6,20,068/- on mandap keeper service and ₹ 31,513/- towards renting of immovable property has been confirmed. Learned counsel submitted that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beverages. In any case, he submitted that even if food was provided, the hall was also provided and in the absence of any evidence to show that the charges collected from the people who utilized the hall was not in excess of normal price of food, the procedure adopted by the department in demanding service tax after allowing abatement of 40% as provided by notification in case, the mandap keeping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any additional cost. In such a situation, the only option left to the department was to allow the abatement towards food and beverages and demand service tax for the rest which has been done. The cum-tax benefit has also been allowed. 5. As regards reliance of the counsel on the decision in the case of Daspalla Hotels Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Visakhapatnam [2010 (18) S.T.R. 75 (Tri.- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
