TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1994 as also against penalties imposed on them under various other provisions of the said Act. The subject matter of main dispute in this case is what is called "club or association" service covered under Section 65(25a) of the above Act. Clause (25a) of Section 65, which was inserted w.e.f. 16-6-2005, reads as under "Club or association means any person or body of persons providing services, facilities or advantages, for a subscription or any other amount, to its members, but does not include - (i) any body established or constituted by or under any law for the time being in force ; or (ii) any person or body of persons engaged in the activities of trade unions, promotion of agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice which was issued on 8-3-2007. The appellants are challenging the demand of Service tax both on merits and on limitation. 2. Ld. Sr. Advocate has argued that the appellants did not provide any taxable service in the aforesaid category to the time-sharers. It is submitted that, on the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the appellants and a time-sharer, the latter received a right to stay in the former's holiday resorts and avail various facilities, amenities and advantages for the prescribed period. He could enjoy the benefit under a "Certificate of Membership" issued by the company. Ld. counsel refers to this certificate as TRUMP CERTIFICATE. He also refers to the small periods of stay (one or two weeks) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., argued that the extended period of limitation was not invocable in this case. For the present purpose, ld. counsel has also pleaded financial hardships for his client. It is submitted that, as on 31-3-2007, the company has incurred accumulated loss of over Rs. 140 crores. In this connection, ld. counsel has also referred to the Annual Report for the year ended 31-3-2007. 3. One important aspect emerging from the submissions of the ld. counsel, which we ought to have mentioned earlier in this order, is that certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are in support of the appellants' plea that the TRUMP CERTIFICATES are liable to be regarded as "goods". It is pointed out that REP licences and EXIM scrips have been held to be goods li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....", "associate member" etc. are seen oft-repeated in these records. Prima facie, it appears to us that it cannot be gain-said that the time-sharers are members of the body into which they were admitted as members. The term "membership" presupposes a body of members, which may be called "association" or "club". Ld. counsel has sought to explain the commonplace features of a club. It has been submitted that a club is a body of determinate number of members, with elected/selected/nominated office-bearers, with periodical meetings of members, governed by a body of rules or by laws. It is submitted that none of these features exists in the present case. As against these arguments, ld. SDR has referred to the definition of "club" or "association" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In this frame of the case, we take the prima facie view that the demand covered by Annexure-II to the order is beyond the normal period and the same may not be sustainable on the ground of suppression of facts inasmuch as the party could not have suppressed before 16-6-2005 any fact relevant to levy of Service tax on "club" or "association" defined under Section 65(25a). Ld. Sr. Counsel has argued that nothing contained in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked to levy Service tax on any amount collected by the appellants from their time-sharers prior to 16-6-2005. We have come across a circular of the Board which governs this area of dispute, which circular has been referred to in the impugned order as well. This circular c....