TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent : Shri M A Nyalkalkar, Adv. PER : P R Chandrasekharan Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/392/2005 dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-II. 2. The respondent M/s Central Panchyat owned a hall. The said hall was rented out for conducting marriages and consideration was collected for such renting. The department w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is before us. 3. The argument of the Revenue is that marriage is a 'social function' and not a 'religious function'. As regards the reliance placed on the Krishnapur Mutt case, the Revenue submits that in that case the Mandap was let out free of cost and, therefore, the ratio of the said decision does not apply. 4. Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue while reiterating the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecifically provide for marriage to be considered as a 'social function' for the purposes of levy of Service tax. Therefore, marriage has to be considered as a religious function only prior to 2007 and not otherwise. The explanation added in Finance Act, 2007 has only the prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively. It is also his contention that even if it is held that the marriage i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the marriages either by following religious rituals or otherwise does not make marriage a 'religious function'. Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gujarati samaj Bhavan (supra), we hold that the marriage is a social function and not a religious function. 6.2 The explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2007 is only by way of abundant caution. Therefore, inse....