TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xi service, banquet hall etc. It is the case of the petitioner that for services relating to banquet hall which it provides for its guests it is registered as "Mandap Keeper" as defined under the Service Tax Act. It has been stated that it provides food and beverages during the functions organised in the banquet hall. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for supply of food and beverages it was paying Sales Tax (VAT) as was applicable. From March 2005 the petitioner was paying service tax on the gross amount charged from the guests under the "Mandap Keeper Service" excluding the value of food and beverages sold by it in terms of notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Thus, the petitioner claims that it was collecting and paying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner, vide order dated 08.01.2010 rejected the plea of the petitioner and held the petitioner to be not entitled to get the benefit of the said notification dated 20.06.2003. Accordingly, the fourth respondent demanded Service Tax from the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,29,44,0543/- with interest at the rate applicable and also with penalty of Rs.200/- per day or 2% of service tax per month. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the fourth respondent Commissioner of Central Excise, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Annexure P-8) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 09.04.2010 along with an application for stay before the second respondent Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the caseWardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2009) 13 STR 490 (Bom) the Tribunal should have taken a consistent view and should have granted total waiver. He further submitted that there was no change in the circumstances after passing earlier two orders of complete waiver and, therefore, the petitioner should have been granted dispensation with such deposit in order to maintain the parity. In order to support his contention that the petitioner would suffer undue hardship and that it has prima facie case as the demand raised has no leg to stand he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2008 (9) STR 337 (S.C.). 9. On the ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal that after obtaining the said orders of complete waiver the petitioner is delaying the hearing of the said appeals. In the circumstances, if the earlier appeals filed are not being heard by the Tribunal and the petitioner has been required to file an appeal for the subsequent years assessment the petitioner cannot be made responsible and cannot be denied the similar benefits which were earlier granted to it in the earlier two appeals involving same question. In our considered view in the absence of change in the circumstances, the Tribunal should have maintained the consistency and uniformity while exercising the judicial discretion and should not have taken a different view than the view it had already taken in the petitioner's two ....