9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces'. Prior to 01/09/2004, the appellant was availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No.12/2001-ST, which provided for 100% exemption, provided the bill issued for this purpose, indicates that it is inclusive of charges of Catering Services. This Notification No.12/2001-ST was amended vide Notification No.8/2004-ST dated 09/07/2004, providing for only 40% exemption, the other conditions remaining the same. It appears that the appellant did not start paying service tax on the taxable component with effect from 09/07/2004. This fact came to the ledge of the Department on 28th February, 2005 when the audit team visited their premises and examined the documents. The audit team calculated service tax on the gross amount for the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2005 requesting for refund of Rs. 11,70,051/-. A show cause notice was issued on 21/03/2007 to hold that service tax has been rightly paid and refund is not allowable. In reply, the appellant stated that the amount claimed is allowable and the same was paid under protest under the Mandap Keeper Service and there have been an error in calculation of the tax payable. It was also stated that as service tax is not payable on the material component that is food and beverages served as provided in Notification No.12/2003-ST the tax payable comes to Rs. 2,87,257/- and thus the balance shall be refundable. It was further stated that the contention of revenue is that the appellant opted for Notification No.12/2001-ST is not correct and the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee/appellant remained the same after 09/07/2004, it cannot be assumed that they opted for Notification No.12/2003-ST with effect from 09/07/2004. This is evident from the fact that the appellant was not paying service tax as required. Accordingly, he was pleased to confirm the service tax liability of Rs. 14,57,308/- thereby rejecting the refund claimed. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, been pleased to reject the appeal, agreeing with the findings of the Assistant Commissioner observing that- 'had in reality appellant been under Notification No.12/2003-ST and non-payment of duty/tax was solely inadvertent mistake. I sorry but I c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beverages supplied, but if the appellant have raised a consolidated bill/amount for the Mandap Keeper Service inclusive of catering charges, then they will be entitled to benefit of Notification No.12/2001-ST, as amended. Accordingly, I allow this appeal, by way of remand and set aside the impugned order. I remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall re-compute the tax liability, as per the directions given by this Tribunal. Thereafter, whatever amount is found to have been paid in excess, the same shall be refunded forthwith to the appellant within a period of 60 days, from the receipt of a copy of this order, along with interest, as per rules. 5. Appellant is also directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
