9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 65(32) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was noticed by the Revenue that during the periods Jan. 2004 to March, 2006 as well as April, 2006 to September, 2007, the appellant had not paid the service tax on the value realized for providing food and room rent from the participants, where the said services were provided as a package. Service tax in this regard to the tune of Rs. 14,75,984/- and Rs. 22,97,067/- was demanded vide the order-in-original dated 12.01.2009. When the issue was carried to the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondent, the demand was set aside. Aggrieved by this order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard Shri Govind Dixit, ld. DR for the appellant/Revenue and Shri Manish Gaur and Shri Rachit Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent is paying luxury tax on the rent charged from the client and showing the same separately in the bills. This further justifies the view that providing the rooms on rent is an independent activity, which is not part of convention service. We have no hesitation in approving the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Next we turn to the question whether the value of meals and beverages supplied to the participants of the conference is to be included in the value of the conventional services. It is on record that such charges alongwith the room rent have been indicated separately in the bills. It is also on record that the respondent has been paying VAT to the State Government on sale of food and beverages to the customers as indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable in law. We find that the appellants have rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in BSNL v. Union of India [2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.)] wherein the Court had held as follows :- "82. For the same reason the Centre cannot include the value of the SIM cards, if they are found ultimately to be goods, in the cost of the service. As was held by us in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 214, 228. "This mutual exclusivity which has been reflected in Article 246(1) means that taxing entries must be construed so as to maintain exclusivity. Although generally speaking, liberal interpretation must be given to taxing entries, this would not bring within its purview a tax on subject matter which a fair r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
