TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principal purpose of which is to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation - till 1.5.2006 taxable service in respect of convention service was laid down as ‘to a client, by any commercial concern in relation to holding of a convention, in any manner’. With effect from 1.5.2006, the words “commercial concern" was substituted by the words “person" and w.e.f 16.5.2008, the words “to a client” was replaced by the word “to any person”. There is no dispute that appellants are a charitable, non-profit organization and for the period at least upto 1.5.2006, appellant cannot be called a “commercial concern” and hence there cannot be any tax liability till that date in respect of “convention service”. It is also not the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had provided taxable services under the category of Mandap Keeper without registering with the department and without discharging service tax liability for the period 1.10.2000 to 30.09.2005 which culminated in an order dt. 05.09.2006 wherein the adjudicating authority inter alia, confirmed demand of ₹ 7,73,998/- with interest thereon and also imposed penalties. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 17.01.2007 remanded the case to the original authority with specific direction to give decision with regard to appellant s plea as to the aspect of function and activity involved in the service rendered by them. In de novo adjudication, original authority vide an order dt. 27.08.2008 reconfirmed tax liability of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely on CCE Vs Larsen Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) (Para 17 of the decision), the Appellant also wish to rely on Board of Control for Cricket of India Vs CST - 2007 (7) STR 384 (Tri-Mum) and Dr. Lalpath Lab Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE - 2006 (4) STR 527 (Tri-Del). iv) Further similar issue has been dealt in Voltas Ltd Vs CCE - 2015 (39) STR 265 (Tri-Mum) the relevant aspect of the case law is extracted below : a. para 4 of the case law - they were using HRD centre mainly for their own function and also provide the said facility to outsiders for conducting the meeting, functions etc., b. para 8 of the case law - we would like to record that post 16.07.2001 the new entry of the convention centre service was introduced whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alls were rented out by the appellant has been correctly classified by Commissioner (Appeals) under Mandap Keeper Service . He submits that notwithstanding whether appellants are charitable organization or not, if there is any monetary consideration that has to be taken into consideration for payment of service tax. In the present case, appellants are not letting halls free of cost and therefore services rendered is not charitable in nature. The argument of the appellant that service is 'convention service' has also been analyzed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has concluded that the service falls only under the category of Mandap Keeper Service . 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. From the facts on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Finance Act, 1994, meant a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function . The original authority has relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Surat Municipal Corporation Vs CCE Surat - 2006 (4) STR 44 (Tri.-Del.). However, as pointed out by this Tribunal in Stay Order No.479/2009 dt. 29.05.2009, the facts of that case were that halls and stadiums were let out for consideration for both social and official functions such as garbas, educational programms, cultural and religious programmes and also for holding official functions, which are not the facts of the case in appeal. So also Tribunal's decision relied upon by adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was open to the public like, marriages, social functions etc. Discernably, the type of meetings or assembly for which the facilities of the appellant were used, were definitely open only to the members of the participating NGO or the organizations like Tamil Nadu Women Development Project Implementation Unit and was not the type of meeting where the general public could join in or participate. It is also not the allegation that such meetings or assembly were held for the principal purpose to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation. This being the case on record, the activities of the appellant cannot fall within the ambit of Mandap Keeper service. Their activity will fall only within Convention Centre Service . In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
