TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... programmes. They collect rent and other charges for the facilities provided for. The department after conducting survey felt that their activity of letting out the hall would attract service tax and they were addressed to register with the department for service tax on 17.1.2005. The appellants vide their letter dt. 25.01.2005 and 25.11.2005 have informed that they were non-profit organization and hence they would not come under the service tax net. They maintained that they did not provide any commercial training and hence they were not commercial concern. Hence, a how cause notice dt. 19.04.2006 was issued to the appellant alleging that they had provided taxable services under the category of "Mandap Keeper" without registering with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same is covered under 'Convention Service' and not under 'Mandap Keeper Service'. ii) Further, the definition of convention means a formal meeting or assembly which is not open to the general public, but does not include a meeting or assembly, the principal purpose of which is to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation, the activity of the Appellant is clearly covered in the definition. iii) Further if the activity of official function is covered under Mandap Keeper service, then there was no need to introduce the Convention service specifically taxing the said activity. In this regard Appellant wish to rely on CCE Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) (Para 17 of the decision), the Appellant also wish ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tivity there was lot of confusion and even the case law relied above classifies the activity under convention service. Hence there was confusion and bonafide belief and Appellant registered and started discharging service tax from 01.05.2006 on substitution of word any person by commercial concern. Therefore there cannot be invocation of extended period of limitation. Considering the same the demand along with interest and penalty requires to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department, Ld. A.R, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) supports the impugned order. He submits that the purpose for which the halls were rented out by the appellant has been correctly classified by Commissioner (Appeals) under "Mandap Keeper Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....communications in support of their contentions. In page 13, we find confirmation from "Indian Church of Christ, Coimbatore" seeking use of the facilities of the appellant for organization of staff conference for the staff and administrators of Kerala and Coimbatore. Pages 22 and 23 contain communication with Project Officer, Tamil Nadu Women Development Project, Project Implementation Unit, Coimbatore with regard to "TOT on EDP" Training from 4.12.2000 to 18.12.2000. 6. Viewed in this context, we are unable to appreciate how the appellant can fall within the definition of "Mandap Keeper", which as per Section 65 (23) of the Finance Act, 1994, meant "a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e words "to a client" was replaced by the word "to any person". There is no dispute that appellants are a charitable, non-profit organization and for the period at least upto 1.5.2006, appellant cannot be called a "commercial concern" and hence there cannot be any tax liability till that date in respect of "convention service". The period of dispute being January to September 2005, in our view, there cannot be any tax liability for the services rendered by the appellant. 8. It is also not the allegation of the department that appellant had used for their facilities for organizing any official, social or business which was open to the public like, marriages, social functions etc. Discernably, the type of meetings or assembly for which the....