Classification dispute and limitation in service tax led to partial relief, with penalties deleted for bona fide abatement claim.

Convention centre services were treated as the applicable taxable category from 16-07-2001, even though the activity had overlap with mandap keeper services and the appellant had earlier paid tax under that head while claiming abatement. The demand for July 2001 to March 2003 was set aside as time-barred because the show cause notice was issued on 04-06-2004 and the availment of abatement was disclosed in ST-3 returns. Penalties were also deleted, the dispute being one of classification and abatement eligibility and the appellant's view being bona fide. The tax demand survived only for the period within limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services rendered by the appellant for the relevant period were classifiable as convention centre services or mandap keeper services and whether service tax demand for the period beyond limitation was sustainable; (ii) whether penalties were imposable where the dispute turned on classification and availment of abatement under Notification No. 21/97-S.T.

Issue (i): Whether the services rendered by the appellant for the relevant period were classifiable as convention centre services or mandap keeper services and whether service tax demand for the period beyond limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant taxable entry for convention centre services came into force on 16-07-2001. The services provided by the appellant fell within the ambit of that entry, though there was overlap with mandap keeper services and the appellant had earlier been discharging tax under the mandap keeper category after availing abatement. The demand for the period July 2001 to March 2003 was held to be barred by limitation, since the show cause notice was issued on 04-06-2004 and the appellant had disclosed the availment of abatement in ST-3 returns.

Conclusion: The service tax demand was upheld only for the period within limitation, while the demand for the time-barred period was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties were imposable where the dispute turned on classification and availment of abatement under Notification No. 21/97-S.T.

Analysis: The dispute involved interpretation of the taxable category and the eligibility to abatement. The appellant's understanding that the services could be treated under mandap keeper services was found to be a bona fide one. In these circumstances, once the demand for the barred period was set aside and the surviving demand rested on a classification issue, the imposition of penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: Penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand was sustained only to the extent it was within limitation, but the time-barred portion and the penalties were deleted, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

---