Event management valuation turns on the commission retained; uncorroborated records cannot sustain service tax demands.

Event management services were held to cover arranging and organising events where the assessee acted in that capacity. For valuation under Section 67, only the gross amount charged for the service was taxable, so the commission retained by the assessee, not amounts merely routed to third-party providers, formed the assessable value. Demands based on loose papers, computer printouts and unsupported statements were held unsustainable without corroboration and proved authenticity, and the extended limitation period and penalties fell with the unproven main demand. The separate Cenvat credit demand survived because it was not properly pressed or substantiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services rendered were classifiable as event management service; (ii) whether the taxable value was confined to the commission retained by the assessee; (iii) whether the loose papers, computer printouts and statements relied upon by the Revenue were admissible and sufficient to sustain the demand; (iv) whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable, and whether the Cenvat credit demand was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the services rendered were classifiable as event management service.

Analysis: The definition of event management service covered services provided in relation to planning, promotion, organising or presentation of events. On the record, the assessee arranged events and received amounts from customers in that capacity. The relied-upon circular relating to sponsorship did not assist the assessee because the customers, not the assessee, bore the event expenditure.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as event management service, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the taxable value was confined to the commission retained by the assessee.

Analysis: For valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the controlling expression is the gross amount charged for the service actually provided. Amounts merely routed to third-party service providers on behalf of the recipient were not consideration for the taxable service rendered by the assessee. The commission of 8-10% alone represented the amount charged for the service provided by the assessee, and tax on that component had already been paid.

Conclusion: The taxable value was confined to the commission retained by the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the loose papers, computer printouts and statements relied upon by the Revenue were admissible and sufficient to sustain the demand.

Analysis: Loose papers and computer printouts not forming part of regular books of account could not, by themselves, sustain a demand without corroborative evidence and proof of authenticity. The Revenue also failed to produce the statutory certificate required for reliance on computer output, and the statements of the partners were treated as violative of constitutional protection and lacking evidentiary value in the facts of the case. The burden remained on the Revenue to establish the alleged transactions by a clear chain of evidence.

Conclusion: The impugned demand based on such material could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable, and whether the Cenvat credit demand was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the principal demand founded on alleged suppression and unsubstantiated transactions did not survive, the basis for invoking the extended period also failed. Accordingly, penalties under the relevant service tax provisions were not maintainable. However, the separate Cenvat credit demand was upheld because the assessee did not press or substantiate that issue with supporting documents.

Conclusion: The extended period and penalties were not invocable, but the Cenvat credit demand was sustained; this was partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The major service tax demand was set aside, the limitation and penalty findings against the assessee could not stand, and only the separate Cenvat credit demand survived.

Ratio Decidendi: For valuation under Section 67, only the amount actually charged for the service rendered is taxable, and a demand cannot rest on uncorroborated loose papers, computer printouts, or statements lacking proved admissibility and evidentiary support.

---