9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business functions such activity is taxable. Appellant is not disputing the fact that renting out the halls / open spaces/ theaters and auditoriums to their clients are allowed for temporary occupation for a consideration - the services rendered by the appellant gets covered u/s 65(105)m of the FA, 1994. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - appellant being BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation and a statutory body, could not be held to have been suppressing the facts with intent to evade service tax liability - extended period not invocable. The demand of service tax can be upheld for the normal period of limitation and not for the extended period - adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed the demand as per the show-cause notice with interest and also imposed penalties. He also appropriated the amounts deposited by appellant during investigation. 5. At the outset we find that the amount received by appellant by renting out the halls / open spaces/ theaters and auditoriums to various clients is definitely taxable under the category of mandap keeper services . Definition of mandap keeper services under Section 65 (67) clearly indicates that a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business functions such activity is taxable. Appellant is not disputing the fact that renting out the halls / open spaces/ theaters and auditoriums to their clients ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be decided is whether the extended period of time invoked to confirm the duty demand can be sustained and whether the appellant can be charged with intention to evade payment of Service Tax? A similar issue was considered in the case of statutory/ government bodies, there can be no mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax and it can be considered only as an omission on the part of the appellants and, therefore, there is no need to impose any penalty and invoke any extended period of time. A similar view was held in the case of other government bodies, in BEST Undertaking Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2007 (213) ELT 202. 5.1 Following the ratio of the said decision in the present case, we hold that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
