9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il for organizing social/cultural functions were liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Mandap Keeper. Show Cause Notice was issued for demand of Service Tax for the above-mentioned period. Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1974 (sic) (1994) was demanded. Penalties under various sections were proposed. The Adjudicating Authority, confirmed the Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,09,943/- under Section 73 of the Act. He confirmed the interest also. He imposed the following penalties. (i) Rs. 500/- under Section 75A for failure to take registration; (ii) Rs. 2,09,943/- under Section 76 for failure to make payment of Service Tax; (iii) Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 for failure to file the prescribed returns; and (iv) Rs. 2,09,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (T) = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 163 (Tri. - Del). The lower authority has erred in holding a cultural activity as a social function by deriving an equation between the words 'social' and 'cultural'. (iii) What is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case is Board's Circular No. 42/5/2002-S.T. dated 29-4-2002 and not the Circular No. F. 332/82/97-TRU dated 24-9-1997. (iv) The appellants produced copies of the affidavits of some of the appellant's patrons that clearly proved the fact that the theater was not being used by them for any ceremony. The burden is on the department to prove the taxability of the service and it is not on the appellant to prove the non-taxability. (v) The appellant had a reasonable c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellants' understanding of the issue no different from that of the departmental officers. In these circumstances, penalty is not imposable. Since the appellant had a reasonable cause which resulted in the failure on the part of the appellant in filing the returns, this is a right case where the provisions of Section 80 of the Act is invocable. (ix) The learned Advocate relied on the following case-laws :- (a) India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CCE, Delhi-I - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 218 (T) 2004 (164) E.L.T. 163 (Tri. - Del.) (b) Social Service League v. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 207 (Tri. Mumbai) (c) Karbala Trust v. CCE, Trivandrum - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 339 (Tri. Bang.) (d) CCE, Mangalore v. Krishna pur Mutt - 2006 (3) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue (cited supra). In the said decision, it is held that drama performances being conducted in the hall/mandap cannot be covered under the levy of Service Tax as Mandap Keeper. The said order of the Tribunal has not given the detailed reasons for holding such a view. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam case cited supra, has held that taxable services could include mere providing of premises on a temporary basis for organizing any official, social or business functions. The Board, in Circular dated 1997, cited supra, has actually clarified this point with reference to the following query Query: Whether service tax is attracted in cases where premises and/or connected facilities are let out on rent to club ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
