VOLTAS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-161
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 15,2015

VOLTAS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER (J) - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. KKS (26) 26/STC/2009, dated 30 -3 -2009. Heard both sides and perused the records.
The issue involved in this case is regarding confirmation of demand of Service Tax liability on the appellant for the period July, 2001 to September, 2003 under the category of "convention services". It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had during this period misclassified the services rendered by them under the category of "mandap keeper" and availed ineligible benefit of abatement of 40% of the gross value of the amounts received from the service recipient.

(2.)LEARNED Chartered Accountant after taking us through the show cause notice and the impugned order as well as the Order -in -Original would submit that the appellants were discharging the Service Tax liability under the category of "mandap keeper". Subsequently a new entry was brought into the statute in the form of "convention centre services" with effect from 16 -7 -2001 that the appellant had in fact indicated to the audit party that they were using HRD Centre mainly for their own function and also provide the said facility to outsiders for conducting the meeting, functions, etc., the said activity would fall strictly under the category of mandap keeper and not under the category of convention centre services. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Taj View Hotel v. CCE, Kanpur - : 2014 (7) TMI 160 -CESTAT, New Delhi : 2014 (36) S.T.R. 888 (Tri. -Del.), CCE, Cochin v. Casino Hotel - : 2010 (19) S.T.R. 425 (Tri. -Bang.) and CCE, Cochin v. Avenue Regent - : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 284 (Tri. -Bang.) to submit that these case laws support his view.
(3.)LD . DR would reiterate the findings of the first appellate authority and also submit that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of 40% abatement under Notification No. 21/1997.
In the rejoinder, the learned CA would submit that the show cause notice is invoking the extended period and the period from July, 2001 to March, 2003 is hit limitation as the appellant had always informing the department about the availment of abatement under Notification No. 21/97 -S.T.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.