Appeal allowed for Mandap Keeper services, demand duty set aside.

The appellant's appeal was allowed with relief, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Cross objection was also disposed of accordingly. The demand duty was set aside, negating the need for interest and penalty imposition, as the appellant was found not to be acting as a Commission Agent under Business Auxiliary Services but solely providing Mandap Keeper services, distinct from the decorator's services.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Service Tax demand confirmation with penalty under Section 78 and refraining from imposing penalty under Section 76.
2. Challenge against Service Tax payment for a Mandap Keeper leasing out premises for functions.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the confirmation of Service Tax demand of Rs. 8,26,080 along with interest and penalty under Section 78, while refraining from imposing penalty under Section 76. The Revenue filed an appeal contending that penalty under Section 76 should also be applicable. The second appeal challenged the same Order-in-Appeal asserting that Service Tax is not payable.

2. The second issue concerns a Mandap Keeper leasing out premises for ceremonial functions like marriages. The appellant received booking advances and donations for decoration tenders during 2004-05 to 2006-07. The Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the donations as consideration received as a Commission Agent, providing Business Auxiliary Services. Consequently, a Service Tax of Rs. 1,82,550 was deemed payable along with interest and equivalent penalty under Section 78.

3. The Revenue argued that the appellant, by granting a decorator a monopoly right for catering and decoration services, was providing services falling under Business Auxiliary Services. However, the appellant contended that they were not acting as a Commission Agent and were solely providing Mandap Keeper services, subject to Service Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address a relevant judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

4. Upon analysis, it was found that the appellant was not acting as a Commission Agent as defined under Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant independently provided Mandap Keeper services, distinct from the decorator's services. Referring to the CKP Mandal case, it was established that when a Mandap Keeper grants a caterer monopoly rights, services are provided solely by the caterer, not the Mandap Keeper. Consequently, the demand duty was set aside, negating the need for interest and penalty imposition.

5. In conclusion, the appellant's appeal was allowed with relief, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Cross objection was also disposed of accordingly.

---