9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investigation conducted by the department revealed that respondent suppressed the fact of providing convention service with intent to evade service tax, though they were paying service tax under the category of Mandap Keeper service but stopped paying such service tax from 1-1-2002 to 8-7-2004. Scrutiny of the records indicated that the respondents had been availing exemption under Notification No. 12/01, dated 20-12-2001 which exempts taxable service provided by a hotel as a mandap keeper and allows the deduction of the said amount from the gross value. It was noticed by the lower authorities that functions which were held in the appellants convention centre were by the business organizations and get directly classified under convention s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarification dated 9-7-01. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the impugned order is correct and the statements made by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal are incorrect statements. It is his submission that the services provided by the appellant are taxable only under the head Mandap Keeper service and not under the head 'convention services'. It was the submission that Mandap Keeper services and convention services overlapped each other and the differences are subtle. It is his submission that if the services cannot be classified on the basis of specific description or essential characteristic it should be classified under sub-clause which appears first in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect. We find from the grounds of appeal that the Revenue has not contested this finding seriously. They had made very feeble effort of claiming suppression on the ground that the respondents had not communicated the receipt of payments on which service tax was demanded and was not declared in ST-3 returns. If it was so, what prevented the Revenue from asking for further details as they were aware that the appellant was providing Mandap Keeper services. We do not find anything wrong in the Commissioner's Order as regards the limitation aspect and we hold that the impugned order is correct and legal. 8. As regards the merits of the case we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the following finding: "The case also needs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. CCE - 2007(208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) STT 23 (SC). I also rely upon CESTAT Western Bench decision in BCCI v. Commissioner of Service Tax that "if subsequent entry was covered by earlier entry, there was no reason or scope to create present entry. Creation of new entries not by way of bifurcation of earlier entry relating to advertisement which remains unchanged without any change in tax rate. Introduction of new tariff entry implies that coverage in new tariff for the purpose of tax was an area not covered by earlier entry." I entirely agree with the contention of the ld. Chartered Accountant that applying the same logic when a service was taxable under an existing category it cannot be covered by any new category. Even tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
