2005 (11) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal arises from OIA No. 2/04 S.T. dated 17-3-2004. The appellant is challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,407/- and additional penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for non-filing of ST-3 returns. The appellants contend that they are a charitable religious organization engaged in community services. They had collected rent on leasing the auditorium for religious activities. Their contention is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their plea. He has upheld the levy of penalty. The appellant is 75 years old person and has prayed for a decision on merits. Learned SDR justified the imposition of penalty. 2. On a careful consideration, I notice that the appellant have questioned the levy of service tax and also the levy of penalty. The auditorium was let out for purpose of 'NAMAZ' i.e. prayers, the activity is not that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., (supra). The appellants certainly held a bonafide belief that they were not covered under the category of "Mantapam" as the activity was not social or cultural but purely religious one. 3. The appellants have challenged the correct calculation of service tax also. They contend that the show cause notice does not speak about the amount of service tax demanded ....