Appeal Dismissed: Upheld Service Tax Demand for Pandal Contract Service

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the confirmation of the service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing "Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service." The appellant's argument that their activities did not fall under the mentioned section was rejected, as the Tribunal found that the services provided by the appellant fell within the defined scope of the statute. The Tribunal emphasized the clear statutory provisions and rejected the appellant's non-taxability belief, noting that they had previously charged service tax.

---

---

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing "Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service."

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original (Review) confirming a service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that they only supplied furniture, fixtures, and other decoration articles, not falling under the scope of the mentioned section. They cited a judgment by the Authority for Advance Rulings to support their claim and asserted no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, during the hearing, they did not press on the valuation issue. The Tribunal considered the definitions under Section 65(77b) and 65(77a) of the Act, which clearly encompassed the activities of a "Pandal and Shamiana Contractor." The appellant admitted to providing electrical lighting and decoration for official functions, falling within the scope of the defined service. The Tribunal noted the unambiguous statutory provisions and rejected the appellant's claim of non-taxability belief, especially as they had actually charged service tax previously. The Tribunal emphasized that the Authority for Advance Rulings' judgment cited by the appellant was not binding and affirmed the applicability of the service tax in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the confirmation of the service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing "Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service."

---