CASE LAWS ON PANDAL OR SHAMIYANA SERVICES

2013-TIOL-349-CESTAT-AHM

M/s Anand Decorators & Hirers Vs CST

Service Tax - Pandal and Shamiyana Service - Mandap Keeper Service - Mis -declaration of Value - Demand - Extended period - The very fact that amounts were collected by mentioning the same on the reverse side of the invoice and not paid service tax on the same clearly amounts to mis -declaration of value and suppression of facts on the part of the service provider. The contention that show-cause notice was issued after two years of completing the investigation, is not sustainable as the extended period of five years is available to the department.(Para 4)

Penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As regards penalties under Sec. 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, prior to amendment of Sec. 78, penalty under Sec.76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be imposed and amendment to Sec. 78 carried out in the year 2008 does not have retrospective effect. As 75% of the tax demanded was paid before issue of show-cause notice, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is reduced to 100% of the service tax demanded (Para 4 & 7)

Penalty - Benefit of 25% payment - The lower authorities have extended the benefit of payment of reduced penalty in the event of payment of tax and interest within 30 days of the original order. Hence, the plea that 25% of the penalty imposed would be paid now, is not allowed. (Para 6)