9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority has not given substantive grounds to cover their activities and has not effectively rebutted their submissions. On the other hand, the judgment cited by the appellant in M/S. KARNATAKA EXHIBITION AUTHORITY VERSUS C.C.,C.E. S. T-MYSORE [ 2018 (7) TMI 1672 - CESTAT BANGALORE] , which covers almost identical activities clearly holds that such activities would not fall under business exhibition services . Therefore, demand in both the appeals under the category business exhibition service is not sustainable and accordingly, demand to that extent is set aside. Demand on electricity charges - HELD THAT:- It appears that they were being collected on actual basis and being submitted to the electricity department and therefore, the same cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on the amount of Rs.30,20,242/- collected towards electricity charges, Syma stall maintenance charges, Deepavali stall maintenance charges, Lepakshi craft bazaar and stalls registration fee during the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 under the category of "Business Exhibition Service". They also demanded an amount of Rs.9,727/- as service tax on the amount of Rs.82,913/- collected towards Autonagar sheds I & II maintenance charges and electricity charges, etc., during the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 under the category of "Mandap Keeper Service". 3. On adjudication, the Original Authority considered the activities undertaken by the appellant as nothing but providing of service to business exhibitors, in relation to business exhibition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, came to the conclusion that they had provided 'business exhibition services', 'mandap keeper services', 'supply of tangible goods services', 'transport of goods by road services' and 'legal services'; and accordingly, confirmed the total demand of Rs.11,01,941/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide OIA dt.30.10.2015, again dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself for noncompliance of mandatory Pre-deposit. The appellant is in appeal against the said OIA dt.30.10.2015 in Appeal No.ST/30029/2016. 6. Learned Consultant for the Appellant has made certain submissions, wherein, he is contesting that during the period 2009-2013, they had not conducted any business exhibition services duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered in the said judgment are almost identical to the activities in the present case, which are being classified under 'Business Exhibition services'. 8. Learned AR for Revenue reiterates the findings and observations of the Adjudicating Authority. 9. Heard the parties and perused the records. Since both the appeals cover identical issues, they are taken up together. 10. We find that the appellants are engaged in various activities and the department, based on their documents like ledgers, etc., considered certain services as falling under certain specific headings and therefore, liable to service tax. In so far as the 'business exhibition service' is concerned, the Original Authority has not given substantive grounds to cover their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
