TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or otherwise? - Held that: - Considering the doctrine of mutuality therefore all said judgments cited are also in jeopardy, accordingly this Tribunal cannot take any decision on the merit of the case in the present legal status of the issue on merit - As regard the quantification error pointed by the assessee in their grounds of appeal. We find that there appears to be apparent errors and if the same is rectified the demand would be substantially reduced - matter on remand. Partly decided against Revenue and part matter on remand. - ST/86794 & 86860/13 - A/90292-90293/17/STB - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Roopam Kapoor, Commr.(A.R.) for Revenue Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocatr (A.R) for Assessee ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal was filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. PVR/43/NGP/2013 dt. 28.01.2013. 2. The fact of the case is that the assessee is registered for the payment of service tax under Club or Association services' and Renting of Immovable Property Services . They also registered with the Sales Tax Department of the State Government and are also a register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal deserves to be dismissed. As regard the appeal filed by the assessee, Ld. Counsel submits that the demand upheld by the Ld. Commissioner is on the amount of various subscription/fees paid by the members of club for availing various facility. On this issue, this Tribunal and various High Courts have held that doctrine of mutuality exist between the club and members, therefore the various facilities/services provided by the club to their member does not amount to provision of service, hence the same is not taxable. This issue is no longer res-integra in view of following judgments. (a) Gondwana Club Vs. Commissioner of Customs C. Ex. Nagpur[2016(42) S.T.R. 895(Tri. Mum)] (b) Sangam India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-II[2017-TIOL-1966-CESTAT-DEL] (c) Residency Club Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kolhapur[2016(45) S.T.R. 448(Tri. Mumbai)] (d) Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd Vs. Union of India[2013(31) S.T.R. 645(Guj)] (e) Commissioner of Central Excise Cus. Surat-I Vs. Surat Tennis Club[2016(42)S.T.R. 821(Guj)] (f) Goa Mineral Ore Exporter's Association Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Goa[2016(44) S.T.R. 281(Tri. Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,442/. He submits that the demand is time barred on the ground that there is a correct and true disclosure of all the transaction in the annual account of the assessee and the same was statutorily audited. The financial statement was duly filed with the office of Charity Commissioner. In respect of all consideration received by the assessee proper invoices or the bills were raised to the members. In this fact no suppression can be alleged hence the demand for the extended period does not sustain. The service tax departmental audit of the assessee's club was conducted by the audit party for the period 2005-06 to December 2008 In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) CCE Vs. Target Institution of Competition - 2008 (11) STR 152 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) R.R. Construction Company Vs. CCE - 2008 (11) STR 53 (Tri.-Delhi) (iii) Ace Computer Education Vs. CCE - 2007 (6) ST 361 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service tax Bangalore - 2009 (13) STR 147 (Tri.Bang.) (v) Om Sai Professional Det. Security Ser. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE Guntur - 2008 (10) STR 59 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Multitrack Cable Network Vs. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant's Bar Room Sales of food, beverages liquor etc. I therefore set aside the demand of service tax of ₹ 15,41,486/- and interest thereon and appropriate penalties imposed on the Appellant towards such sales, in the Order-in-Original . From the above finding it can be seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand of ₹ 15,41,486/- on account of sale of food and beverages, considering the documents such as VAT Returns, Bar Room Sales Leger, Summary of Bar Room VAT Report, Specimen Bills etc. therefore it cannot be said that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand without any basis. The documents referred in the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are more than sufficient to establish the receipt towards sale of food and beverages. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order in as much as it dropped the demand of ₹ 15,41,486/-. Accordingly we uphold this portion of the order and dismiss the Revenue's appeal. 7. As regard the issue raised on the merit that on the basis of doctrine of mutuality whether consideration receipt by the club from their members is taxable or otherwise. We find that as per the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
