9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reclassification of service for taxation. 2. Entitlement to benefit under the law. 3. Time bar for proceedings. Analysis: Reclassification of service for taxation: The appellant, registered as a Mandap Keeper and paying service tax, faced a dispute when Convention Service was brought under service tax. The Revenue sought to reclassify the services provided by the appellant as Mandap Keeper under the category of convention service. The appellant argued that the service's character and nature remained the same, and reclassification based on a mere change of mind by the Audit party was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted the disagreement between the parties on the nature of service and the issue of time bar. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's demand for realization of the tax during the appeal, indicating a waiver of pre-deposit without expressing a final opinion. Entitlement to benefit under the law: The appellant contended that since they were paying service tax as a Mandap Keeper, they were entitled to the benefits required by law. The appellant's representative argued that the availing of abatement under the Mandap Keeper category should still be permissible, emphasizing compliance with the law's intention. On the other hand, the Revenue asserted that the service provided by the appellant should be classified under the convention service category, implying the inapplicability of abatement under the Mandap Keeper category. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments from both sides but did not express a conclusive opinion on the matter pending a detailed hearing during the appeal. Time bar for proceedings: Both parties disputed the issue of time bar regarding the proceedings. The appellant's representative highlighted the potential time bar as a defense, suggesting that if the Revenue succeeded on merits, there would be no case due to the proceedings being time-barred. The Tribunal recognized the quarrel between the parties concerning the time bar but refrained from making a definitive judgment on the matter at that stage. The Tribunal's decision to waive pre-deposit during the appeal indicated a temporary resolution of the time bar issue pending further detailed examination during the appeal hearing.
|
