Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Divestment programme - Appellant had taken over control of “Hotel Centaur” from Govt. of India - Mandap Keeper Services - Health and Fitness Services - Dry cleaning Services - Held that: - Once it is accepted that the Appellant were rendering Mandap Keeper/ Banquet Servcies and the Bills were raised for the gross amount towards food and all services related with such activity, the assessee would be eligible for abatement of 40% from the value of the serv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

“Hotel Centaur” from Govt. of India under its divestment programme. However as the facts appear, due to non cooperation by employees and their strike, litigation in High Court, VRS to their employee and subsequent closure the service tax payment could not be made. We also find that details of services rendered by them were appearing in their Bills and accounts books. we find that the non payment of service tax on above services was due to financial constraints as well as various happenings as me .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- penalties u/s 76,77 and 78 set aside - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO. ST/04/2012 - Order No. A/90697/16/STB - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. M.H. Patil, Advocate with Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. B. Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal has been filed by M/s Tulip Star against the Order dt. 30.09.2011 passed by the Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

004 alleging that the Appellant has neither got themselves registered nor paid service tax on services of Health and Fitness Services and Drycleaning Services. It was also contended that service tax though collected under the category of Mandap Keeper Services but was not paid to the Government. The show cause notice thus proposed demand of ₹ 54,27,614/- on account of non payment of taxes. Out of the said demand ₹ 31 Lakh demand pertained to service tax on Mandap keeper which was cha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ignorance of law as the services were provided . The Appellant also submitted that in case of Mandap Keeper Services, even though they were facing financial constraints and closure of business they paid service tax of ₹ 31 Lakhs as soon as pointed out by the department. The remaining amount of ₹ 3,38,277/- was paid in Feb and May 2004. That the calculation of demand of ₹ 54,27,614/-was made on gross value whereas they are eligible for 40% abatement in case of Mandap Keeper Ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt submits that the nonpayment of service tax under the category of Mandap Keeper was due to financial constraints, non cooperation of employees and VRS amounts given to them. The Counsel takes us through the relevant documents in this regard. The Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned order has not extended benefit of the abatement of 40% under the category of Mandap Keeper Services which is available to them in terms of Notification No. 21/97 - ST dt. 26.06.97 and subsequent analogus notificati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ap keeper services the overall demand of service tax on all the services comes to ₹ 34,38,277/-. That an amount of ₹ 31 lakhs was paid before issue of service tax and the remaining amount of tax of ₹ 3,38,277/- was paid on 30.05.2005 i.e before passing of the impugned order. As regard the allegation that the Appellant have collected the service tax from their customers, he submits that this allegation is absolutely incorrect firstly for the reason that from the face of the invo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty should be imposed upon them. In support of his submission on penalty, he relied upon following judgments: (a) Moving Pixels Co. Vs. Commissioner [2014(34) STR 286 (T)] (b) Adecco Flexione Workforce Vs. Commissioner [2012(26)STR 3(Kar)] (c) Manipal County Vs. Commissioner [2010(17) STR 474(T)] (d) Manipal County Vs. Commissioner [2014(36) STR J188(Kar.)] 6. Shri B.Kumar Iyer Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 7. We have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d be eligible for abatement of 40% from the value of the service for payment of service tax. Therefore the service tax liability of the Appellant in respect of Mandap Keeper services should be on the value after abatement of 40% in terms of Notification No. 21/97 - ST dt. 26.06.97 and subsequent analogus notifications. We accordingly hold that the Appellant is eligible for abatement of 40% from the value of services under aforesaid notifications. As may be seen from the calculation shown in Anne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version