2016 (11) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken over control of "Hotel Centaur" from Govt. of India under its divestment programme in the year 2002. The Appellant took service tax registration under the category of Mandap Keeper Services and till September 2002 paid service tax. In subsequent period due to financial constraints they could not make service tax payments. 2. The Appellants were issued show cause notice dt. 31.08.2004 alleging that the Appellant has neither got themselves registered nor paid service tax on services of Health and Fitness Services and Drycleaning Services. It was also contended that service tax though collected under the category of "Mandap Keeper Services" but was not paid to the Government. The show cause notice thus proposed demand of Rs. 54,27,6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der. The Appellant aggrieved with the above impugned order is in appeal before us. 5. Shri M.H.Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the nonpayment of service tax under the category of "Mandap Keeper" was due to financial constraints, non cooperation of employees and VRS amounts given to them. The Counsel takes us through the relevant documents in this regard. The Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned order has not extended benefit of the abatement of 40% under the category of Mandap Keeper Services which is available to them in terms of Notification No. 21/97 - ST dt. 26.06.97 and subsequent analogus notifications. He submits that the Appellant is providing banquet services in their hotel which includes the food, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Pixels Co. Vs. Commissioner [2014(34) STR 286 (T)] (b) Adecco Flexione Workforce Vs. Commissioner [2012(26)STR 3(Kar)] (c) Manipal County Vs. Commissioner [2010(17) STR 474(T)] (d) Manipal County Vs. Commissioner [2014(36) STR J188(Kar.)] 6. Shri B.Kumar Iyer Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that there is no doubt about the taxability of services in question. The appellant also not contesting the taxability except the quantification of service tax due to denial of notification of abatement. Once it is accepted that the Appellant were rendering "Mandap ....