9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the showcause notice annexed at AnnexureE was confirmed. 2. The case of the assessee is that the assessee is the local authority established under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1963 within the local area of Surat City and the activities are carried out for the public purpose and not for the profit purpose. It is the case of the assessee that while providing certain services for public function, Mandaps were supplied in the public hall and auditorium hall which are owned by the Corporation. It is the case of the appellant that since last three decades the appellant has been maintaining and looking after various halls and stadiums, details of which are given as under: Sr. No. Name of Mandap 1 Gandhi Smruti Bhavan 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,92,281/reducing from Rs. 15,41,715/alongwith penalty of Rs. 100/per day of delay under Section 78 with interest of service tax. 2.5 The appellantassessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which came to be decided by final order dated 28/02/2006 confirming the demand of service tax but setting aside the penalty on the ground that the appellant being a statutory Government body and being under a bona fide belief that there was no liability to pay service tax, penalty was not justified which has given rise to this appeal. 3. While admitting this appeal, following question of law has arisen for consideration of this Court: "(a) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertainment programmes as these programmes are for the purpose of public welfare. He has also taken us to the reply dated 21/02/2004 submitted by the appellant and contended that the different contentions were raised and thereafter the order came to be passed at AnnexureC. He has also contended that the reasons given by the authority in the impugned order establishes that it was fall under Section 73(a); whereas in fact the case would fall under Section 73(b). 4.3 After making the aforesaid submissions, he has contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not just and proper and therefore the same may be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms.Avni Mehta learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that in view of nonsupp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fall under Section 73(a) and it would fall under Section 73(b) of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, the tribunal has committed serious error by not considering the submissions made by the appellant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The question No.(b) raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant and against the department.
Through this note for speaking to minutes, it is correctly pointed out that in paras 7 and 9 of judgement dated 10.08.2016 reference to question No.(b) is not correctly typed. The same should be question No. (a). At both these places, the said typographical error shall stand corrected.
Note is disposed of accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
