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

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (6) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Revenue from asking for further details as they were aware that the appellant was providing Mandap Keeper services when receipt of payments states as not decaled in ST-3 returns – suppression not proved - 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. - respondents had been availing exemption under Notification No. 12/01, dated 20-12-2001 – departmental clarification issued in 2001 that person registered under Mandap Keeper service not required to get registered under Convention service - Board Circular No. 51/13/02, issued on 7-1-2003 holding exemption not admissible in such cases, is applicable with prospective effect and can be relied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants convention centre were by the business organizations and get directly classified under convention services. Coming to such a conclusion show cause notice dated 21-3-2007, was issued demanding service tax amount of Rs. 6,77,797/- under the category of convention service and for imposition of penalty and recovery of interest. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the respondent rejected the claim of limitation and held that the services are classifiable under convention service and hence confirmed the demand of duty. Aggrieved by such a OIO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the OIO and allowed the appeal of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... istic it should be classified under sub-clause which appears first in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was submitted that the exemption Notification No. 12/01, dated 20-12-01 cannot be taken away by Circular issued by the Board. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue involved in this case is whether the services provided by the applicant for the business organization for conducting conferences during the period 1-1-02 to 13-7-04 is liable to be charged under service tax as convention services despite the fact that the respondents has taken the registration under Mandap Keeper and filed returns annually. 7. On the issue of limitation, we find that the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds the merits of the case we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the following finding: "The case also needs to be considered on merits. The Board's letter F. No. B/11/1/2001-TRU, dated 9th July 2001 relied upon in the Order-in-Original has this to say "apart from the fact that there is a subtle distinction between the type of events (official, social or business function in the case of mandap keeper as opposed to formal meeting in the case of convention services) it is clarified that the intention is not to charge the service tax twice on the same service. If a service provider is already registered as a mandap keeper and paying service tax, he is not liable to pay service tax again under the category of convention s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 though the learned Adjudicating Authority has not referred to any such circular in the findings and order section, I note that in the show cause memo there is a reference to Board's Circular No. ST-51/13/2002, which reads that "between the two competing categories, in this case, the more specific one would be that of a 'convention service' since a 'mandap keeper' includes official, social as well as business functions whereas a 'convention service' covers conventions only which is like an official function. Hence in this case the service would not be exempt from service tax.' This was issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates