TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er : Shri A S Bisla, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Amreesh Jain, AR ORDER PER: SULEKHA BEEVI C S: The appellant is engaged in providing Mandap Keeper services under Section 65 (105) (m) of the Finance Act, 1994 and are registered with the service tax department. On perusal of ST-3 returns for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 it was observed that appellants had availed exemption under Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below have erroneously denied the same. Secondly, that majority of the functions conducted in the Mandap/ Hotel were marriage functions and that no service tax was leviable for such functions being religious functions. 3. The learned counsel adverted to the definition of Mandap Keeper and also relied on the CESTAT judgment in CCE Mangalore Vs. Krishnapur Mutt, 2003 (157) ELT 182 (Tri-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supra) the Tribunal has categorically held that marriages are not social functions. Learned counsel submitted that he would be able to establish from the invoices, documents that majority of the functions held during the relevant period were marriage functions. It is seen that though appellant had pleaded this ground before the authority below, the same has not been considered taking the view that....