TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication of another show-cause notice. The period of dispute covered by the two show-cause notices are June, 2005 to May, 2007 and June, 2007 to March, 2008 respectively. Waiver and stay are also sought in respect of penalties imposed on the appellant. The appellant is registered with the Department since August, 2006 as provider of 'club or association service' and 'mandap keeper service'. A major part of the demand raised in the first show- cause notice is beyond the normal period of limitation. We are told that, towards demand of Service tax of Rs. 30.9 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 17.3 lakhs is within the normal period. We are further told that an amount of Rs. 6,18,788/- was paid by the appellant and the same stands appropriated towards ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o immovable property cannot be charged to levy under the above head. With regard to health club charges and body massage charges, it is submitted that these are not chargeable to service tax under the head ('club or association service') even though they may be charged under other heads. Similar submissions have been made in respect of the demand covered by the other show-cause notice also. 2. Ld. Counsel further submits that the relevant facts were known to the Department at the time of registration of the appellant for service tax purpose. The statements recorded from the appellant in September, 2006 disclosed many of the relevant materials to the Department. Therefore, the show-cause notices issued beyond the normal period of limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermined by the authorities and has endeavoured to show that all such amounts were correctly brought to levy of service tax under the said head. Regarding the plea of limitation, ld. SDR submits that the crucial facts were not disclosed by the appellant even during the stage of investigations and therefore the larger period of limitation has been correctly invoked in this case. 5. After considering the submissions, we have not found prima facie case for the appellant insofar as the demand of service tax on life membership fees is concerned. Though it has been claimed that such fees are refundable as per the by-laws of the appellant, the claim is yet to be substantiated. We have not been shown a copy of the by-laws. Hence, prima facie, ....