Case Law Details
CCE-Chandigarh Vs Mashobra Resorts Ltd. (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT find that the respondent has not charged separate consideration for providing the conference hall which was provided to the respondent as complementary service. Further, the analysis of the break-up of the corporate billing as provided by the respondent it is clear that no separate consideration was received for provision of conference facilities.
Further, through Circular No. 332/82/97-TRU dated 24 September 1997 it was clarified that in case of no charges/ rental is being paid i.e., the premises are given out free of cost to hold such function, there would be no service tax liability as the premises are given free of cost. This issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal as relied upon by the appellant cited (supra). In the case of Dukes Retreat Ltd. (supra), the division bench of this Tribunal in identical facts held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax on complementary services of conference hall.
In the second case of Dukes Retreat Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2018 (8) GSTL 85 (Tri.-Mumbai) again the Tribunal held that the complementary services provided free of cost will not be taxable under “Mandap Keeper Service”. This decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal on merits as reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. J32 (S.C.) .
Further, the Bangalore bench of this Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of Duke Retreat Ltd. cited (supra) and held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax on „Mandap Keeper Service‟ in respect of corporate booking of rooms where conference hall is provided as a complementary service.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
