9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 24 September 1997 it was clarified that in case of no charges/ rental is being paid i.e., the premises are given out free of cost to hold such function, there would be no service tax liability as the premises are given free of cost - In the case of Dukes Retreat Ltd. [[ 2017 (5) TMI 465 - CESTAT MUMBAI] ], the division bench of this Tribunal in identical facts held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax on complementary services of conference hall. There is no infirmity in the impugned order - Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 186 Of 2011 - A/60118/2023 - Dated:- 3-5-2023 - Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Amandeep Kumar, AR for the Appellant Shri Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dance/gazels whereas the bills were charged for a consolidated amount of room+breakfast+group activities to the company. The Respondent filed reply to the show cause notice and after considering the submission of the respondent, the adjudicating authority passed the OIO dated 04.11.2010 and dropped the proceedings initiated against the Respondent observing inter alia that use of conference hall was merely a complimentary service offered by the Respondent against which no consideration was charged, and the consideration was charged for the room booking basis per room/ per night and hence, the Respondent is not providing Mandap Keeper Service . 2. Heard both the parties and perused the material of records. 3. Ld. DR submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that it is clear from the facts that the rooms were booked with the sole purpose of holding official functions. Ld. DR also justified the invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation that though payment of service tax was detected during the audit and the respondent have also suppressed the material facts with intend to evade payment of service tax. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the Respondent was offering certain complimentary services like the provision of conference halls, breakfast etc. against the consolidate amount charged for the rooms provided for accommodation in the hotels. She further submitted that no separate considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 229 (Tri. - Mumbai) Dukes Retreat Ltd. v CCE, Pune-I, 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 85 (Tri. - Mumbai)[maintained in Supreme Court in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. J32 (S.C.)] CCE, Jaipur-I v Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd.2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 343 (Raj.)- Rajasthan High Court [affirmed in Supreme Court in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J122 (S.C.)] Aamby Valley City Developer Ltd. v CCE, Pune, 2018 (6) TMI 931 - CESTAT Mumbai She also submitted that holding the conference is merely an incidental and ancillary to the main purpose i.e., stay and recreation of employees. She also submits that the consideration received from the Respondent was against the letting out of rooms for stay and not for the purpose of holding business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression on the part of the Respondent. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we think before we proceed to decide the appeal, it is pertinent to reproduced the definition of Mandap Keeper Service as provided under Section 65 (66) of the Finance Act, 1994 as under:- Mandap means any immovable property as defined in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein let out for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function; [Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, social function includes marriage;]* 6. Further, we find that the respondent has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated in the invoices to come to a conclusion that appellant had in fact charged an amount for the use of the conference halls. 8. In the second case of Dukes Retreat Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2018 (8) GSTL 85 (Tri.-Mumbai) again the Tribunal held that the complementary services provided free of cost will not be taxable under Mandap Keeper Service . This decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Apex Court and the Hon ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal on merits as reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. J32 (S.C.) . 9. Further, the Bangalore bench of this Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of Duke Retreat Ltd. cited (supra) and held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
