TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that 10% of the bill amount charged as service charges are liable for service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,18,630/- and penalty of Rs. 2,37,260/- was imposed on the appellants. 3. The con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Commissioner vide Order dated 4th December, 1998, held that this 10% amount is not to be included in the gross amount charged by the Mandap keeper. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that they were charging 100/n as service charges and the customer has to pay this 10% for the services received by the clients and this amount is paid by the appellants. The Revenue has also contended that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keeper from the client for the use of mandap, including facilities provided to the clients is in relation to such use and also the charges of catering, if any. As the appellants were charging this amount from their customers for providing the services, which is covered under the above mentioned proviso of law, therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the appellants that this 10% is not li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
