Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
All India Distillers Association vs Commissioner, Service Tax-Delhi on 19 December, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
~~~~~
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO.4
Service Tax Appeal No 50209 Of 2017
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 103/ST/Appeal-I/2016-17/15192 dated
10.11.2016 passed by Commissioner(Appeals-I) Service Tax, Delhi]
All India Distillers Association
805, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place,
Kalkaji-Delhi-110019 Appellant
Vs
Commissioner, Service Tax-Delhi Respondent
17-B, I.A.E.A. House, M.G. Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 APPEARANCE:
Shri Atul Kumar Gupta & Mr. Varun Gaba, C.As., Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Jayakumari, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. 59909/2024 Date of Hearing: 27/09/2024 Date of Decision:19.12.2024 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s All India Distillers Association1 to assail the Order-In-Appeal No. 103/ST/Appeal-I/2016- 17/15192 dated 10.11.2016 wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 28,23,620/- against the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of Club or Association Services covered under Section 65 (105) (zzze) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant is an association of its members comprising any individual, firm or company or a factory owing or 1 the appellant 2 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 managing one or more distillers worked by steam, water, or electricity, carrying on the business of distillers in the form of alcohol potable or other liquors. The members of appellant paid admission fees/affiliation fees/ Membership fees for becoming the Member of the AIDA. The appellant organizes seminars related to the alcohol industry for members & non-members and charges 'Delegation Fee' for the seminar. Further, there are certain other income such as advertisement in the newsletter for Member, sale of Publications etc. The appellant's records were audited by the department and it was alleged that the appellant had not paid the Service Tax on part of income related to 'Delegation Fee' for the seminar received from members and other income related to advertisement and sale of publication. The department further noted that the amount received for 'Delegation Fee' for seminar/ Seminar receipt collected from members during the period 2007 to 2012, is liable to be covered under Convention Services falls under Section 65(105) and a demand of Rs. 10,82,057/- was proposed against the appellant. However, on other activities like Tour receipts, Circular income, Contribution from News Letter, Advertisement Income, Sale of Publication, the demand of Rs. 12,12,961/-was confirmed under the category of Club or Association services as specified under Section 65 (25a) read with Section 65(105) (zzze) of the Finance Act. Thereafter, for the subsequent periods i.e., 2012-13 to 2014-15, three more show cause notices were issued. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions made dropped the entire demand vide order dated 29.01.2016. Being aggrieved of the said adjudication order, the department preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal of the department and confirmed the demand 3 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 proposed in the show cause notices against the appellant vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 09.11.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has organized seminars for their member and charges 'Delegation Fee for the Seminar'. The department has alleged the said amount received as delegation fee would be covered under the Convention Services 65(105) (zc). In this regard, he submitted that a perusal of definition of 'Convention Services', makes it clear that it is not open to the general public. However, in the instant case, the seminars conducted by the Appellant are open to general public on payment of fee i.e., 'Delegation fee' and therefore, is not covered under the 'Convention Services'. Ld. Counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in interpreting the definition of 'Convention Services and the taxable services provides service tax on person who provides space and ancillary services to hold the convention. In support of his submission, ld. counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of M/s Confederation of Indian Industry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Services Tax, Chandigarh- I2 and the Board's Circular No. 51/13/2002 dated 07.01.2003. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant had already discharged service tax for the same set of services under the category 'Club or Association Services' and, once the department had accepted the payment of Service Tax under this category, it is not open to them to demand under a new classification for the same set of services. The classification of services 2 2023 (7) TMI 57 - (CESAT Chandigarh.) 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 provided under any other category is not be maintainable. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments: -
Aravali Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Jaipur- II3 Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 4 Therefore, the services provided by the appellant would be rightly classified under the category of 'Club or Association Services' and not under the 'Convention Services.' Merely because seminars have been conducted by the Appellant, who is very well covered under 'Club or Association Services', cannot be said to be providing Convention Services. On the basis of above submissions, the demand confirmed under the category of 'Convention Services' is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is an association formed on the principle of mutuality and is not a separate and distinct individual while dealing with its members. An association even though a distinct legal entity, is only acting as an agent for its members. The applicant transacts with its members based on principle of Mutuality and therefore, the services provided by the appellant to its members are notable to service under the category of "Club or Association services". Agreeing with the contentions of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority rightly dropped the demand considering the transaction involved is based on Principle of Mutuality. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned Order, did not dispute that the services provided are covered under the Principle of Mutuality, but, proceeded to confirm the demand stating 3 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 347 (Tri. -Del) 4 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 146 (Tri. -Mumbai) 5 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 that the cases referred by the appellant has not attained finality and has been challenged and pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is now well settled that service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the club or association with its members being done under the Principle of Mutuality. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only. In support of his submission, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments:-
State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited5 Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur6 Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd.7 Moreover, the appellant being a registered Trade Union, falls under the exclusion of the definition of 'Club or Association Service. For this reason also, the activity of the Appellant cannot be taxed under the category of Club or Association Services." In view of the above submissions, tax cannot be demanded on the other receipts of the Appellant i.e., Tour receipts, Additional set of Circulars, Contribution for News Letters, Advertisement in News Letters, Sale of Publication, being covered under the Principle of Mutuality.
3.2 Ld. counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed against the Appellant for the sale of Publications and Newsletters under the category of "Club or Association Services", which is not sustainable as the transaction is covered under the category of Principle of Mutuality. In additions, he submitted that it is well settled law that value of services does not include value of goods
5 2019 (19) G.S.T.L. 545 (S.C.) 6 2022 (65) G.S.T.L. 350 (Tri. - Del.) 7 2022 (65) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.) 6 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 sold or supplied of transferred during the provision of services or otherwise. The sale of goods is chargeable to VAT. Therefore, service tax cannot be demanded on this transaction. He drew attention to the fact that the department while calculating the demand for the subsequent years had deducted the value of 'Sale of Publications" from the taxable value. Therefore, the demand for the period with respect to 'Sale of Publication' and News Letters would not be liable to service tax and the service tax cannot be demanded on Advertisement Receipts. 3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is registered with the Registrar of News Paper for India, for printing and circulation of AIDA News Letters to its member which is exempt from Service Tax under clause (iv) of the definition of Club or Association Services. The Appellant is a registered Trade Union under taking the activities of a Trade Union, Exempt under Club or Association Services, also engaged in providing circular and news letter in furtherance of its objects. Trade Union accepts advertisement cost from its members for advertisement and it cannot be termed as Advertising Agency or an advertising consultant. Moreover, the demand in this respect also comes under the principle of mutuality, hence, would not be liable to Service Tax. Also, the service of advertisement cannot be taxed under the category of Club or Association. Post Negative List, the services provided would he covered under clause (g) of the Negative List and hence, not taxable. Similarly, the activity carried on by the appellant in the post negative list period, would not be liable to Service Tax.
3.4 Ld. counsel further submitted that it is settled law that when the assessee has duly disclosed and recorded the information in its books which is a public document and accesible to the revenue authorities, it 7 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 cannot be said the facts have been concealed suppressed by the Assessee. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgements:-
Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Jitender Lalwani8 Shri Balaji Industrial Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex, Jaipur9 3.5 Learned counsel further submitted that it is well settled that when there is confusion about the taxability of any activity and different views are prevalent about the taxability of the same, extended period cannot be invoked. In support of his submission, ld. counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgements:-
Bharat Aluminium Co., Lat CCE, Raipur10
Clearchem Agencies Vs Commissioner of Central Excis, Indore11
Commissioner of S.T., Chennai Vs. Spectrasoft Technologies ltd.12
4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department while
reiterating the findings of the impugned order and submitted that show cause notices were issued on the premise that the party had provided convention services and that the party did not discharge its service tax liability on the income received for rendering 'Convention Service by way of holding of seminars. There is no exclusion for Trade Unions etc from the scope of taxable services under the above-mentioned category. LD AR further submitted that the appellant, viz., AIDA organizes/holds seminars for their members and charges 'Delegation Fee for the seminar' as consideration. The appellant has received 8 2017 (51) S.T.R. 312 (Tri.-Del.) 9 2019 (370) E.LT. 280 (Tri Del.).
10 2007(8) STR 27 (Tri. Delhi) 11 2015(37) STR 823 (Tri-Delhi) 12 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 224 (Tri-Chennai) 8 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 income in the name of 'Delegation Fee for the seminar' from participants/delegates.
4.1 Ld. AR further submitted that the participation in the workshops and consequent availment of the benefits and services offered therein as underlined in workshop in workshop brochures, appear to be restricted for only those who have paid the declared Delegation Fee to the assessee. Therefore, the appellant by holding of seminars and making available the benefits arising thereof to the delegates, has provided such services to delegates and members, which are covered under Section 65 (32) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (105) (zc) of the Finance Act, 1994. Ld. AR further contended that the activities of organizing Tours for members, providing additional set of circulars and news letters to members, advertisements in Newsletters and sale of publications to members, undertaken by the appellant are for the furtherance of business and commerce of the members of the association and not for the furtherance of the objectives of a trade union. Therefore, the services provided by the appellant to its members against consideration covered under "Club or Association service" as specified- under Section 65(25a) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 65(105) (zzze) of the "Act", are not exempt from the levy of service tax.
5. We have heard the Ld Counsel for the appellant and the Ld AR for the department. The admitted facts of the instant case are as follows:
i. The Appellant is registered with the Service Tax department under Club or Association Services.9
Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 ii. The appellant is also registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 with the objective to regulate the relationship between workmen and workmen industries, amongst others. iii. The appellant is an association of its Members as has been defined in the show cause notice.
iv. The appellant organises seminars for their members and charges Delegation Fees from them.
v. Some of the said seminars held were for effluent treatment & allied matters, Water conservation Distillery Effluent treatment technologies for zero discharge etc.
6. We proceed to examine the said matter in the light of the above facts. The impugned order has classified the service of conduction seminars and charging delegate fees under Convention Service, which is defined under Section 65(32) of the Finance Act, 1994 as:
"Convention" means a formal meeting or assembly which is not open to the general public, and does not include a meeting or assembly the principal purpose of which is to provide any type of amusement, entertainment or recreation:"
Also, Section 65 (105) (zc) of the Finance Act, 1994 reads as:
"Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be provided [to any person], by any person in relation to holding of convention, in any manner,
7. We need to examine whether the seminars/workshops held by the appellant satisfy the aforesaid definition. We note that the appellant is registered under Club or Association service which specifically excludes any person or body of persons engaged in the activities of Trade Unions. In the instant case, it is seen that the seminars and workshops being held by the appellant is for the benefit of their members only, as is obvious from the nature of these seminars. It is also noted that the appellant is an association of its members, and therefore no service tax can be charged on service to one self, as per the principle of mutuality. 10
Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 In the context of the above discussions, we take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus Calcutta Club Limited and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service & Ors., versus m/s. Ranchi Club Ltd [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the definition of "club or association" contained in Section 65(25a) makes it plain that any person or body of persons providing services for a subscription or any other amount to its members would be within the tax net. However, what is of importance is that anybody "established or constituted" by or under any law for the time being in force, is not included. Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that companies and cooperative societies and like which are registered under the respective Acts, can certainly be said to be constituted under those Acts, and therefore incorporated clubs or associations constituted prior to 1st July, 2012 are not included in the service tax net. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereinafter:
"58. ................................ Under Section 65(25a), "club or association" was defined as follows: "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) anybody established or constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or
(ii) any person or body of person engaged in the activities of trade unions, promotion of agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, or
(iii) any person or body of person engaged in any activity having objectives which are in the nature of public service and are of a charitable, religious or political nature, or
(iv) any person or body of persons associated with press or media.
59. Under Section 65(105)(zze), "taxable service" was defined as follows:
11
Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 ""Taxable service" means any service provided- (zze) to its members by any club or association in relation to provision of services, facilities or advantages for a subscription or any other amount."
60. With effect from 1st May, 2011, "club or association" was defined by Section 65(25aa) as follows:
"club or association" means any person or body of persons providing services, facilities or advantages, primarily to its members for a subscription or any other amount but does not include-
(i) anybody established or constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or
(ii) any person or body of person engaged in the activities of trade unions, promotion of agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, or
(iii) any person or body of person engaged in any activity having objectives which are in the nature of public service and are of a charitable, religious or political nature, or
(iv) any person or body of persons associated with press or media.
61. Likewise, in Section 65(105)(zzze), the expression "or any other person" was added after the expression "to its members", thus making it clear that the tax net had now been widened so as to include non- members of clubs or associations as well.
xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
65. With effect from 1st July, 2012, Sections 65 and 65A were made inapplicable, and a new Section 65B introduced, in which under Section 65B(37), the term "person" was defined as follows:
"(37) "person" includes,-
(i) an individual,
(ii) a Hindu undivided family,
(iii) a company,
(iv) a society,
(v) a limited liability partnership
(vi) a firm, 12 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017
(vii) an association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not,
(viii) Government,
(ix) a local authority, or
(x) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
71. With this background, it is important now to examine the Finance Act as it obtained, firstly from 16th June, 2005 uptil 1st July, 2012.
72. The definition of "club or association" contained in Section 65(25a) makes it plain that any person or body of persons providing services for a subscription or any other amount to its members would be within the tax net. However, what is of importance is that anybody "established or constituted" by or under any law for the time being in force, is not included. Shri Dhruv Agarwal laid great emphasis on the judgments in DALCO Engineering Private Limited v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye and Ors. Etc. (2010) 4 SCC 378 (in particular paragraphs 10, 14 and 32 thereof) and CIT, Kanpur and Anr. v. Canara Bank (2018) 9 SCC 322 (in particular paragraphs 12 and 17 therein), to the effect that a company incorporated under the Companies Act cannot be said to be "established" by that Act. What is missed, however, is the fact that a Company incorporated under the Companies Act or a cooperative society registered as a cooperative society under a State Act can certainly be said to be "constituted" under any law for the time being in force. In R.C. Mitter & Sons, Calcutta v. CIT, West Bengal, Calcutta (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 641, this Court had occasion to construe what is meant by "constituted" under an instrument of partnership, which words occurred in Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Court held:
"The word "constituted" does not necessarily mean "created" or "set up", though it may mean that also. It also includes the idea of clothing the agreement in a legal form. In the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, at pp. 875 & 876, the word "constitute" is said to mean, inter alia, "to 13 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 set up, establish, found (an institution, etc.)" and also "to give legal or official form or shape to (an assembly, etc.)". Thus the word in its wider significance, would include both, the idea of creating or establishing, and the idea of giving a legal form to, a partnership. The Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of R.C. Mitter and Sons v. CIT [(1955) 28 ITR 698, 704, 705] under examination now, was not, therefore, right in restricting the word "constitute" to mean only "to create", when clearly it could also mean putting a thing in a legal shape. The Bombay High Court, therefore, in the case of Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. v. CIT [(1956) 29 ITR 903, 907] , was right in holding that the section could not be restricted in its application only to a firm which had been created by an instrument of partnership, and that it could reasonably and in conformity with commercial practice, be held to apply to a firm which may have come into existence earlier by an oral agreement, but the terms and conditions of the partnership have subsequently been reduced to the form of a document. If we construe the word "constitute"
in the larger sense, as indicated above, the difficulty in which the learned Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court found himself, would be obviated inasmuch as the section would take in cases both of firms coming into existence by virtue of written documents as also those which may have initially come into existence by oral agreements, but which had subsequently been constituted under written deeds."
73. It is, thus, clear that companies and cooperative societies which are registered under the respective Acts, can certainly be said to be constituted under those Acts. This being the case, we accept the argument on behalf of the Respondents that incorporated clubs or associations or prior to 1st July, 2012 were not included in the service tax net.
74. The next question that arises is - was any difference made to this position post 1st July, 2012?
75. It can be seen that the definition of "service" contained in Section 65B(44) is very wide, as meaning any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration. "Person" is defined in Section 65B(37) as 14 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 including, inter alia, a company, a society and every artificial juridical person not falling in any of the preceding sub-clauses, as also any association of persons or body of individuals whether incorporated or not.
76. What has been stated in the present judgment so far as sales tax is concerned applies on all fours to service tax; as, if the doctrine of agency, trust and mutuality is to be applied qua members' clubs, there has to be an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration. We have seen how in the judgment relating to sales tax, the fact is that in members' clubs there is no sale by one person to another for consideration, as one cannot sell something to oneself. This would apply on all fours when we are to construe the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44) as well.
77. However, Explanation 3 has now been incorporated, under sub- clause (a) of which unincorporated associations or body of persons and their members are statutorily to be treated as distinct persons.
78. The explanation to Section 65, which was inserted by the Finance Act of 2006, reads as follows:
"Explanation: For the purposes of this section, taxable service includes any taxable service provided or to be provided by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof, for cash, deferred payment or any other valuable consideration:"
79. It will be noticed that the aforesaid explanation is in substantially the same terms as Article 366(29-A)(e) of the Constitution of India. Earlier in this judgment qua sales tax, we have already held that the expression "body of persons" will not include an incorporated company, nor will it include any other form of incorporation including an incorporated co-operative society.
80. It will be noticed that "club or association" was earlier defined under Section 65(25a) and 65(25aa) to mean "any person" or "body of 15 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 persons" providing service. In these definitions, the expression "body of persons" cannot possibly include persons who are incorporated entities, as such entities have been expressly excluded under Section 65(25a)(i) and 65(25aa)(i) as "anybody established or constituted by or under any law for the time being in force". "Body of persons", therefore, would not, within these definitions, include a body constituted under any law for the time being in force.
81. When the scheme of service tax changed so as to introduce a negative list for the first-time post 2012, services were now taxable if they were carried out by "one person" for "another person" for consideration. "Person" is very widely defined by Section 65B(37) as including individuals as well as all associations of persons or bodies of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Explanation 3 to Section 65B(44), instead of using the expression "person" or the expression "an association of persons or bodies of individuals, whether incorporated or not", uses the expression "a body of persons" when juxtaposed with "an unincorporated association".
82. We have already seen how the expression "body of persons"
occurring in the explanation to Section 65 and occurring in Section 65(25a) and (25aa) does not refer to an incorporated company or an incorporated cooperative society. As the same expression has been used in Explanation 3 post-2012 (as opposed to the wide definition of "person" contained in Section 65B(37)), it may be assumed that the legislature has continued with the pre-2012 scheme of not taxing members' clubs when they are in the incorporated form. The expression "body of persons" may subsume within it persons who come together for a common purpose, but cannot possibly include a company or a registered cooperative society. Thus, Explanation 3(a) to Section 65B(44) does not apply to members' clubs which are incorporated.
83. The expression "unincorporated associations" would include persons who join together in some common purpose or common action - see 16 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 ICT, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad v. Indira Balkrishna (1960) 3 SCR 513 at page 519-520. The expression "as the case may be" would refer to different groups of individuals either bunched together in the form of an association also, or otherwise as a group of persons who come together with some common object in mind. Whichever way it is looked at, what is important is that the expression "body of persons" cannot possibly include within it bodies corporate.
84. We are therefore of the view that the Jharkhand High Court and the Gujarat High Court have followed Young Men's Indian Association (supra). We are also of the view that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members' clubs in the incorporated form" and the said decisions squarely cover the facts of the present case.
8. In the instant case, we note that the appellant was an industry specific body of persons registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The main objectives, inter alia, to regulate the relationship between workmen and employers; to promote and regulate and consider all questions affecting them, make representations to local/State/Central government authorities on any matter connected them etc., falling within the parameters defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Consequently, we hold that the holding of seminars/workshops by the appellant does not fall within the ambit of Convention Services on the basis of the principle of mutuality. Consequently, the charging of Delegation Fee is not leviable to service tax. In this context, we also take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s CII vs Commissioner, Chandigarh {2023(7) TMI -57 CESTAT Chandigarh] wherein it was held that when meetings/seminars are held for the Members, the charging of delegation fee is not exigible to service tax as the activity is squarely covered by the principle of mutuality. The relevant para is reproduced hereinafter:
17
Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 "23. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that during the relevant period, the appellant cannot be termed to be a commercial concern so as to make them liable to pay service tax for providing a necessary infrastructure for conduct of the conventions. By no stretch of imagination, the appellant can be termed as a commercial concern as there are body of the industry formed as a trust protect the interest of the industry. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that they are collecting certain sums of providing the infrastructure for holding conventions, they cannot be termed as a commercial concern to be liable to pay service tax for this activity. Moreover, defined the conventions organised by the appellant is open to general public and any person interested in the subject matter of the Convention can participate in the Convention by paying the delegate fee. Once the Convention is open to general public, then it is not a Convention within the meaning of 'Convention' under service tax law and consequently no demand of service tax can be raised on Convention service."
9. In view of the above, we hold that the demand of service tax on Convention service is liable to be set aside. Once the principle of mutuality is accepted, then all other activities carried out by the appellant on which demand has been confirmed is also set-aside. At this juncture, we note that it is an admitted fact that the appellant was registered under service tax and was paying tax on services which was exigible to Service tax.
10. At this juncture, we take the opportunity to commend the order-in- original passed by the Additional Commissioner for its thoroughness, fairness, and clarity. The said order reflects thoughtful consideration given 18 Service Tax Appeal No. 50209 of 2017 to all aspects of the case, and judicial precedents while reaching a well- reasoned decision.
11. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order and restore the original order dated 29.01.2016. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court 19.12.2024) (DR. RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) GY.