Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1015 - AT - Service TaxMandap Keeper services - appellants had availed exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 - short payment of service tax - It is urged by the counsel that prior to this amendment, marriage being a religious function would not fall into the category of social function mentioned in the definition - Held that - . It is seen that though appellant had pleaded this ground before the authority below, the same has not been considered taking the view that Krishnapur Mutt is a temple and the premises is used for religious purposes only. We are not able to fully agree with this view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) Marriages whether conducted in a premises of temple or in the premises of a hotel have the same character. Marriage functions cannot be differential on the premises where they are conducted. After 16.5.2007 marriages have been expressly brought within the ambit of social functions. This necessary implies that marriages having taint of religious function was outside the purview of definition of Mandap Keeper prior to 16.5.2007. However, the plea has to be established by the appellant by documentary evidence that the functions conducted during the period was marriage functions and not subject to levy of service tax. We therefore, are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for remand. In view thereof, the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication directing the authority to consider all the pleas raised by the appellant.
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.
|