9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that This Bench in M/S. COSMOPOLITAN CLUB VERSUS CCE & ST, MADURAI [2018 (2) TMI 1052 - CESTAT CHENNAI], has held that for the period up to 30.06.2012, there cannot be any service tax liability on the amounts collected by the clubs/associations from its members under various categories of members - the demand on short payment on the Club and Association Services is not sustainable. Renting of Immovable Property Services - Held that:- In the very same case of M/s. Handloom Export Promotion Council (supra), this Bench has taken a view that the same fell within the taxable category - demand with interest upheld. Restaurant Service - Held that:- This issue requires fresh adjudication in the light of the appellant’s explanation support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring facility on a monthly lease rent. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Revenue on 21.04.2014 proposing to demand service tax along with applicable interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant rendered service under the category of Club Or Association Service, Restaurant Service And Renting Of Immovable Property Service, but had not paid appropriate service tax within the prescribed time; they had not registered with the Department immediately on crossing the threshold exemption under Section 69 of the Act read with Rule (4) of the Service Tax Rules, etc. 2. The above Show Cause Notice culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2015 wherein the demand, interest and penalties were confirmed, except penalty under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble, for which reason we set aside the same. 4.2 With regard to Renting of Immovable Property Services, we find that in the very same case of M/s. Handloom Export Promotion Council (supra), this Bench has taken a view that the same fell within the taxable category and therefore, the demand as well as applicable interest is sustained. 4.3 With regard to the Restaurant Service, we find that the appellant s claim was that there was no shortfall whatsoever. The appellant had further claimed that the alleged difference was on account of difference in the abatement rates applicable prior to and post 01.07.2012 which was at 70% and 60% respectively. The appellant has further explained that it had paid service tax claiming an abatement of 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
