Mandap keepters
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
Manager, Ravindra Kalakestra
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore
DR. S.L. PEERAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND T. K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 1222 OF 2007
IN APPEAL NO: ST/41/2004
OCTOBER 30, 2007
Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Mandap keepers - Assessee was a
non commercial auditorium and was let out on nominal charges for various social
events - Service tax was demanded from assessee on ground that activity of
letting out auditorium for various social events was covered under category of
mandep keepers - Whether since despite several opportunities, assessee failed
to discharge its onus to establish its case and further activity carried out by
assessee was akin to activity carried out in Secretary, Town Hall Committee,
Mysore City Corpn. v. CCE [2007] 10 STT 434 (Bang.-CESTAT) wherein Tribunal
upheld levy of service tax, assessee was liable to pay service tax - Held, yes
(Para 4.1)
The assessee was a non-commercial auditorium and was let out on nominal charges for various social events. The revenue demanded service tax from the assessee on the ground that the activity of letting-out the auditorium for various social events was covered under the category of mandap keepers. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand.
On appeal:
The assessee had not taken any plea that one of the activities as defined under the mandap keepers were not being carried out by it. Despite several opportunities given to the assessee to establish its case, it had not come forward to discharge its onus on it. In terms of the allegations made, the assessee was carrying on the activities of the mandap keepers and such an activity was akin to the activity carried out in Secretary, Town Hall Committee, Mysore City Corporation v. CCE [2007] 10 STT 434 wherein Tribunal upheld the levy of service tax to the type of activities for which the assessee let out town hall and Kalamander. The findings were clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case. Applying the ratio of the said judgment, there was no merit in the appeal and therefore, same was to be dismissed. (Para 4.1)
Secretary, Town Hall Committee, Mysore City Corpn. [2007] 10 stt 434 (Bang.-CESTAT) - followed.