ST/3896/2012, ST/56277/2013, ST/53144/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 150/ST/PKJ/CCE/Adj/2012 dated 5.9.2012 in Appeal No. ST/3896/2012, Order-in-Original No. 08/2012 dated 07.12.2012 in Appeal No. ST/56277/2013 and Order-in-Original No. 21/AKJ/ST-1/2015 dated 29.05.2015 in Appeal No. ST/53144/2015, passed by the Commissioner, .... Case: Old World Hospitality Limited Vs CST, New Delhi. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ST/3896/2012, ST/56277/2013, ST/53144/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 150/ST/PKJ/CCE/Adj/2012 dated 5.9.2012 in Appeal No. ST/3896/2012, Order-in-Original No. 08/2012 dated 07.12.2012 in Appeal No. ST/56277/2013 and Order-in-Original No. 21/AKJ/ST-1/2015 dated 29.05.2015 in Appeal No. ST/53144/2015, passed by the Commissioner, ... |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate and For Respondents: Sanjay Jain, D.R. |
| Judges | S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) |
| Issue | Service Tax |
| Judgement Date | January 20, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
B. Ravichandran, Member (T), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
These three appeals are covering same service tax dispute and hence are taken up together for disposal. The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for providing various taxable services and were engaged in managing and operating the hospitality and conference facilities at the premises of India Habitat Centre (IHC), New Delhi. The main dispute in these appeals is the liability of the appellant to pay service tax on the amount received from IHC towards expenses incurred for operation of the centre. The service tax liability was sought to be confirmed under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". In addition, in one of the appeals, appellant's entitlement for abatement under notification No. 1/06-ST: dated 1.3.2006, in respect of "Mandap Keeper Service" is also a matter of dispute. The appeals covered the period from 2005-06 to 2011-2012. The service tax demands of Rs. 3,44,45,613/- under "Business Auxiliary Service" and Rs. 99,60,802/- under "Mandap Keeper Service" were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned orders. Various penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 were also imposed.
-
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has wrongly availed cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and input services and availed the abatement under notification No. 1/06-ST: simultaneously. As such, they have reversed the whole disputed cenvat credit of Rs. 35,79,014 along with interest of Rs. 35,19,674/- on 20.09.2013. In view of the total reversal with interest of the credit availed, their claim for abatement under Notification No. 1/06-ST: cannot be denied. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandarpur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) and the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 792 (T-LB). It was also submitted that though the reversal of full cenvat credit was done after adjudication, their entitlement for abatement cannot be denied. Reliance for this was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (174) ELT d422 (All.). In the said case, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed the concession under the notification considering the reversal of credit on the input done at the Tribunal's stage.
-
On the main dispute, involved in all the three appeals, with reference to appellant's tax liability under BAS, ld. Counsel submitted as below:-
(a) The appellant does not render any service to IHC under the agreement dated 2.8.97. The agreement is for combined management of the facilities available with IHC with the expertise of the appellant. The gross consideration received was shared on a set proportion between the appellant and IHC. IHC is merely reimbursing the expenses incurred by the appellant for managing the facilities.
(b) The appellant is not providing any service to IHC neither they have received any consideration towards such service...
To continue reading
Request your trial