Service tax demands partially set aside for business exhibition services and electricity charges remitted to department CESTAT Hyderabad partially allowed appeals against service tax demands. The tribunal set aside demands for business exhibition services, finding ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Service tax demands partially set aside for business exhibition services and electricity charges remitted to department
CESTAT Hyderabad partially allowed appeals against service tax demands. The tribunal set aside demands for business exhibition services, finding insufficient grounds and citing precedent that similar activities don't qualify under this category. Electricity charges collected on actual basis and remitted to electricity department were also excluded from service tax liability. However, demand for mandap keeper service of Rs.9,727 was upheld as previously accepted by appellant. Penalties under Sections 76, 77 and fine under Section 70 were set aside due to lack of evidence showing deliberate tax evasion attempt.
Issues involved: Classification of services under 'Business Exhibition Service' and 'Mandap Keeper Service', imposition of service tax, penalty under Sec 76, Sec 77, and fine under Sec 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, non-compliance with mandatory Pre-deposit, applicability of judgment in Karnataka Exhibition Authority vs CC, CE & ST, Mysore [2018 (7) TMI 1672 (CESTAT-Bangalore)].
Classification under 'Business Exhibition Service' and 'Mandap Keeper Service': The appellant, engaged in Business Exhibition Service and Mandap Keeper Service, faced a demand for service tax on various charges collected. The Original Authority considered the appellant's activities as falling under taxable service u/s 65(105)(zzo) for 'Business Exhibition Service' and 'Mandap Keeper Service'. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.
Non-compliance with mandatory Pre-deposit: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with mandatory Pre-deposit, leading the appellant to approach the Tribunal against the dismissal.
Applicability of judgment in Karnataka Exhibition Authority case: The appellant contested the demand, citing a judgment that activities similar to theirs did not qualify as 'Business Exhibition Service'. The Tribunal considered the judgment and found that the activities in question did not fall under the category of 'Business Exhibition Service', setting aside the demand to that extent.
Decision and Outcome: The Tribunal set aside the demand for 'Business Exhibition Service' and electricity charges, as they were not found to be liable for service tax. However, the demand for 'Mandap Keeper Service' was upheld. The penalties and fine were set aside due to the lack of substantive grounds for deliberate evasion of service tax. The appeals were partly allowed based on the above findings.
Judges: MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
