9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently cancelled by the customer and the amount is refunded to them. Admitted position, which emerges is, that no booths are ultimately rented out by the appellant to their customers. As explained, such cancellation charges are for putting the appellant into inconvenience by initially booking the booths and subsequently cancelled. In as much as no service stand provided by the appellant to their customers and for which purpose no consideration was ever received by them, we are of the view that the cancellation charges recovered by the appellant cannot be held to be the consideration for providing business exhibition services. The same are thus not liable to service tax. Imposition of penalty - extended period of limitation - Held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the booking amount is being refunded to them after deducting certain cancellation charges. The dispute relates to the said cancellation charges retained by the appellant. Whereas the appellant s contention is that such charges have no nexus with the services provided by them under business exhibition services in as much as no service was provided, the Revenue is of the view that since the booths were pre booked by the customers and were subsequently cancelled, the cancellation charges retained by the assessee are liable to service tax under business exhibition services. 3. The second issue relates to the penalties imposed and recovered by the appellant from their customers where they have violated the booth sizes and have enhanced the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the penal charges recovered by the appellant from the booth size violators it stand explained to us by the Ld. Advocate that the appellant, while providing the business exhibition services, rent out booths of a particular size. In some cases, the occupant of the booth increases the size of the booth in height. Admittedly, the said variations results in increasing the size of the booth for which purpose the appellant receives some amount from the booth occupant naming the same as penalty. In as much as the said extra amount received by the appellant is in connection with the size of the booth provided by them to its customers, the inevitable conclusion is that the same is for the extra space availed by the customer. As such, by whatever na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue involved is interpretation of the provisions of law. In the absence of any positive evidence produced by the Revenue to show that the penalty amount recovered by the appellant from the booth violators was not being made leviable to tax on account of any malafide, we find no justifiable reasons to invoke the longer period of limitation. As such we hold that in as much as the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation, same is hit by the bar of limitation and is not sustainable. 9. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders confirming service tax, interest and imposition of penalty and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. [ Pronounced in the open Court on 25/11/2016 ] - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
