Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (1) TMI 1015 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Appellant wrongly availed exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST.
2. Whether service tax is leviable for marriage functions.
3. Interpretation of the definition of 'Mandap Keeper' under Section 65 (105) (m) of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Applicability of the CESTAT judgment in CCE Mangalore Vs. Krishnapur Mutt, 2003 (157) ELT 182 (Tri-Bang).

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in providing Mandap Keeper services, had availed exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The department alleged wrongful exemption and issued a show cause notice demanding the short paid amount. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but set aside the penalty. The Tribunal was approached by the appellant challenging the service tax demand.

2. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification and that no service tax was leviable for marriage functions, considering them as religious functions. The definition of 'Mandap Keeper' under Section 65 (105) (m) was crucial. The appellant referred to the CESTAT judgment in CCE Mangalore Vs. Krishnapur Mutt, 2003, which highlighted the distinction between social and religious functions.

3. The definition of 'Mandap Keeper' during the relevant period was examined. The Finance Act, 2007 introduced an explanation stating that social functions include marriages. The appellant contended that prior to this amendment, marriages were not considered social functions and, therefore, were not subject to service tax. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that marriages held in a temple or a hotel should be treated differently, emphasizing that the nature of the function remains the same.

4. The Tribunal found it necessary for the appellant to provide documentary evidence to establish that the functions conducted during the period were indeed marriage functions and not liable for service tax. Hence, the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, directing them to consider all arguments raised by the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant an opportunity to substantiate their claims with supporting evidence.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates