Tribunal upholds service tax demand for "mandap keeper" services, affirms penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order that the appellant provided "mandap keeper" services, correctly confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty, and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant provided "mandap keeper" services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was correctly confirmed.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty were justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Provision of "Mandap Keeper" Services
The appellant contended that it was engaged in running restaurants and supplying bakery items, not providing "mandap keeper" services. The Department, however, received information indicating that the appellant was offering services for events like birthday parties, kitty parties, and marriage parties, which fall under "mandap keeper" services as defined under Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994. The investigation revealed that the appellant let out halls and rooms for social, official, or business functions, charging significant amounts. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's activities were within the scope of "mandap keeper" services, supported by statements from the appellant's manager and director, and documents seized during the investigation.

Issue 2: Demand for Service Tax, Interest, and Penalty
A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 91,04,431/- for the period 2008-2012, based on the appellant's "other income" amounting to Rs. 8,32,03,871/-. The Commissioner confirmed the demand with interest and penalty, rejecting the appellant's defense that it only booked tables for restaurant services and did not let out rooms for events. The Commissioner relied on evidence including statements from the appellant's manager and director, and bills relating to "mandap keeper" services.

Issue 3: Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty
The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty. However, the Commissioner found that the appellant had suppressed material facts to evade service tax, justifying the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The imposition of penalty and interest was upheld as legally valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order that the appellant provided "mandap keeper" services, correctly confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty, and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty.

---