Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rajmahal Hotel vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2007]6STT11
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellants' filed this appeal against the Order-in- Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case, the demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that the appellants are providing the services of Mandap keeper.
3. The contention of the appellants is that they are running a hotel and hotels are exempted from payment of service tax. The contention is that the appellants are not giving the hall for organising social functions. They are giving the halls on rent along with rooms only and the halls have been provided not for any consideration of social functions etc. The appellants also pleaded that demand of service tax is confirmed after taking into consideration the gross amount received by them, therefore, the amount should be treated as cum-tax amount.
4. The contention of the revenue is that appellants are renting out the halls for organising marriage and other social functions for consideration. Revenue relied on the findings of the adjudicating authority to submit that they are maintaining a separate book for the purpose of booking the hall for marriage and other purposes. All the terms and conditions for booking the hall/rooms has been printed in it. The contention is that appellants are renting out the hall for social functions. Therefore, they are providing service as Mandap Keeper.
5. We find that demand is confirmed on the ground that appellants are providing services of Mandap Keeper. As per the provisions of Finance Act, " 'Mandap Keeper' means a person who allows temporary occupation of a Mandap for a consideration for organising any official, social or business function". The adjudicating authority gave a specific finding of fact that appellant had been maintaining a separate book for the purpose of booking the hall for marriage and other social function. This finding is not controverted by the appellants by providing any evidence. The appellants are renting out the hall, where marriages are solemnized for consideration, therefore, they are providing the services as Man-dap Keeper and are liable to pay service tax. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order where by the demand of service tax is confirmed. We find that as the gross amount received by the appellant is taken into consideration, therefore, the amount should be treated as cum-tax amount. Otherwise, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)