9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave had a bona fide assumption that the services would fall under mandap keeper services, we set aside the demand on the ground of limitation; hence, no penalty would arise on the portion of confirmed demand. As regards the demands confirmed, within the period of limitation, as we have held that the issue involved is an interpretation of classification and benefit of Notification No. 21/97-S.T., we hold that there is no reason that warrants, imposing the appellant with penalties. Upholding the tax liability for the period within limitation; and interest thereof, we set aside penalties imposed on appellants. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/147/2009-Mum and Cross Objection No. ST/CO/18/2010-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/158-159/2015- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandap keeper and not under the category of convention centre services. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Taj View Hotel v. CCE, Kanpur - 2014 (7) TMI 160-CESTAT, New Delhi = 2014 (36) S.T.R. 888 (Tri.-Del.), CCE, Cochin v. Casino Hotel - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 425 (Tri.-Bang.) and CCE, Cochin v. Avenue Regent - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 284 (Tri.-Bang.) to submit that these case laws support his view. 5. Ld. DR would reiterate the findings of the first appellate authority and also submit that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of 40% abatement under Notification No. 21/1997. 6. In the rejoinder, the learned CA would submit that the show cause notice is invoking the extended period and the period from July, 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the appellant had in his ST-3 returns indicated the availment of benefit of Notification No. 21/97-S.T. 9. As regards the tax liability for the period April, 2001 to September, 2003, we find that the said tax liability needs to be confirmed under the category of convention centre services. It is mentioned that the appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability, interest liability will arise on the appellant which needs to be upheld. As regards the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority, it is to be noted that for the period July, 2001 to September, 2003, the appellant may have had a bona fide assumption that the services would fall under mandap keeper services, we set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
