2005 (11) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the imposition of penalty of ₹ 5,407/- and additional penalty of ₹ 1,000/- for non-filing of ST-3 returns. The appellants contend that they are a charitable religious organization engaged in community services. They had collected rent on leasing the auditorium for religious activities. Their contention is that the activities carried out in the auditorium was not that of Mantapam w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs old person and has prayed for a decision on merits. Learned SDR justified the imposition of penalty. 2. On a careful consideration, I notice that the appellant have questioned the levy of service tax and also the levy of penalty. The auditorium was let out for purpose of NAMAZ i.e. prayers, the activity is not that of marriage as is understood, when mantapam is let out for the purpose. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... afide belief that they were not covered under the category of Mantapam as the activity was not social or cultural but purely religious one. 3. The appellants have challenged the correct calculation of service tax also. They contend that the show cause notice does not speak about the amount of service tax demanded and that there is no application of mind in working out the service tax. The ple .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X