9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch letting out of the auditorium was held by the lower authorities to be liable for payment of service tax under the category of "Mandap Keeper Service" in Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, after issue of show-cause notice, the demand of service tax was confirmed against the appellant. The lower authorities further ordered for payment of interest as well as penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The appellant is represented by Shri R. C. Agarwal, ld.Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, ld.D.R. 4. The ld.Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a non-profit organization ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be provided to any person by a Mandap Keeper in relation to the use of Mandap in any manner including the facilities provided or to be provided to such person, in relation to such use and also the services, if any, provided or to be provided as a caterer." Section 65(66) defines Mandap as any immovable property as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein let out for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. As per explanation thereto, social function includes marriage. 4.2 The question to be decided is when the Auditorium is rented out for conducting cultural functions, whether the same would get covered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty accordingly. 4.3 The next issue to be decided is whether the extended period of time invoked to confirm the duty demand can be sustained and whether the appellant can be charged with intention to evade payment of Service Tax? A similar issue was considered in the case of Surat Municipal Corporation case (supra) and it was held that in the case of Statutory/Government bodies, there can be no mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax and it can be considered only as an omission on the part of the appellants and, therefore, there is no need to impose any penalty and invoke any extended period of time. A similar view was held in the case of other Government bodies, in BEST Undertaking v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
