9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CST, Delhi [2014 (5) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] followed – Decided in favour of appellant. - APPEAL NO: ST/85371/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2014 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Neerav Mainkar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No: 67 to 69/STC-I/SKS/14-15 dated 13/11/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax I, Mumbai. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is an association established in1947 of various banks as its Members and provides various activity to the member banks lik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Commissioner of Service Tax and Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council vs. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2014-TIOL-701-CESTAT-DEL has held that the services rendered would not fall under the category of taxable services as the members cannot be categorised as clients to whom services are provided. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is liable to discharge service tax liability on the amounts collected by them as subscription, fees and various charges for conducting conferences, seminars for its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, were served with a show cause notice by the authorities which reached the Tribunal, which was decided on 08/04/2014. The Principal Bench after considering the various submissions made by both the sides and also considering the law and the definition, has held as under: 24. On the analyses above, we hold: (a) That the appellants FICCI and ECSEPC are engaged in activities having objectives which amount to public service and are of a charitable nature; the appellant ECSEPC is also a body falling within the exclusionary clause (i) of Section 65(25a) of the Act; (b) Services provided by appellants to their respective members and consideration received therefor is not exigible to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked and the confirmation of penalties, is unjustified and unsustainable 8. We also find that this bench in the case of Matunga Gymkhana 2015-TIOL-108-CESTAT-MUM has held the same view that any association is not providing services to its own members and the bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Ranchi Club vs. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Ranchi 2012-TIOL-1031-HC-JHARKHAND-ST and also the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat vs. Union of India 2013-TIOL-528-HC-AHM-ST. 9. In view of the foregoing and the authoritative judicial pronouncements on the issue, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
