TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dap Keeper services (Rs.48,61,336/-), (C)Management, Repair and Maintenance Service (Rs.49,37,872/-), (d) Club or Association Service (Rs.22,12,691/-) and (e) Exhibition Service (Rs.40,170/-). The case was adjudicated, resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority confirmed the service tax demands as proposed in the show cause notice except in respect of franchise service where the demand was restricted for the period after 18.04.2006. He also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submitted on the following grounds:- (1) The Original Authority did not consider all the submissions made by the appellant in proper perspective. The appellants have paid Rs. 1,71,28,676/- in respect of three services viz. Franchisee Service, Mandap Keeper Service and Management, Repair and Maintenance Service, before issue of show cause notice. The amounts paid have been appropriated against the confirmed tax demands except in case of Franchisee Service, where the appellants in fact paid excess amount, as the demand was restricted only for the period post 18.04.2006. (2) In respect of these three services, no sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they have allowed HSBC to put up a display board in the hotel premises and this cannot be considered as service relating to business exhibition. This is purely a provision of space for display of an advertisement of HSBC. The appellants have neither organized any exhibition nor was there any participation of HSBC in any such event. (7) The demands for extended period is strongly contested by the appellants in respect of the three services for which substantial demand has been confirmed. The appellants have discharged the liability on being pointed out by the Department. However, the issue involved was legal interpretation and there is no case for suppression of facts with fraudulent intent to evade payment of tax. The Original Authority also did not bring out categorically how the demand for extended period could be sustained in terms of Section 73(1). The general assertion, the appellant did not inform the Department and give the full particulars regarding the tax liability, cannot be the reason for invoking longer period of payment and also for imposing various penalties. (8) Wherever excess amount of service tax was deposited, the lower authorities should have considered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot in agreement with the submissions of the appellant that the service tax paid by them during the course of inquiry or investigation should be considered as a deposit. The service tax has been duly paid against the past liability under appropriate tax head in the Government account. The same cannot be considered as an advance of lump sum payment for a future liability. In fact, wherever the appellant have deposited the service tax, the same has been against the past liability. Such payment is made by the appellant, on being informed during the course of enquiry, by the officers. The same is towards specific past liabilities towards service tax, not a lump sum deposit of undeterminable tax liability. We find that the case laws relied upon by the appellant regarding their claim for automatic refund of purported excess payment are not applicable to the facts of this case as mentioned above. In Ebiz. Com Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (49) STR 389 (Allahabad), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was examining the payment made by the appellant which was sought to appropriated as per proposal in the demand notice. In the present case, the demand notice did not propose any appropriation (para 23 of show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the liability of the appellant for exhibition service, we note that Section 65(105) (wzo) defines that Business Exhibition Service as a service to an exhibitor, by the organizer of a business exhibition in relation to business exhibition. Section 65(105)(19a) defines "Business Exhibition" is an exhibition to market; or to promote or to advertise; or to showcase, any product or services, intended for the growth in business of the producer or provider of such product or service, as the case may be. In the present case, the appellant permitted HSBC to display its board in their premises. There is no evidence of appellant's holding any business exhibition and allowing HSBC as exhibitor. We find that display of an advertisement board in the premises of the appellant does not make the appellant as an organisor of a business exhibition. The finding of the original authority is legally untenable. Accordingly, there is no service tax liability on such activities under business exhibition services. 10. Regarding the contention of the appellant against the demand for extended period, we note that in respect of franchisee services, for which liability arose on reverse charge basis, there ....