TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o more res integra as the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2014 (5) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Services provided by the appellants to non-members and the consideration received for rendition of such service, fall outside the scope of the definition of “Club or Association” service and the taxable service defined in Section 65(25a) read with Section 65(105)(zzze) of the Act, prior to 1-5-2011 - activities undertaken by the Chamber of Commerce have been considered as amounting to public service and of non-chargeable nature - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/428/2012 - A/86641/17/STB - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 13/03/2009. Appellant contested the show cause notice on various grounds. The adjudicating authority, after following due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest and also imposed penalties. 5. We find that the issue as recorded herein above is not disputed and the adjudicating authority has held that the fees collected by the appellant during the relevant period is liable to be taxed under the definition of Club or Association Service . The issue is no more res integra as the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce Industry v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2015 (38) STR 529 (Tri.-Del.), after going through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionate service tax and interest for these services provided subsequent to the amendments w.e.f. 1-5-2011 (not identified in the impugned order), cannot be sustained since the show cause notice dated 28-12-2012, issued to FICCI covering part of the post amendatory period omits to allege FICCI s liability to tax on the basis of the amended provisions and thus there is denial of due process; and (f) Invocation of the extended period of limitation for initiation of proceedings against both the appellants, to the extent the extended period is invoked and the confirmation of penalties, is unjustified and unsustainable. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced conclusion of the Principal Bench, activities undertaken by the Chamber of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
