AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original(Review) dated 17.12.2008 passed by Commissioner in terms of which service tax demand of
Rs.13,92,115/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties. The impugned demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellant had provided
Pandal and Shamiana Contract Service"" under Section 65(105)(zzw) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant has contended that it only supplied furniture, fixtures, light, light fittings, floor covering and other articles for decoration and were not
covered under the scope of Section 65(105)(zzw) ibid. It quoted the judgement of Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Kartar Singh Kochar
[2005 (187) ELT 304 (AAR)]. It also stated that there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on their part and therefore, the extended
period was not invokable. During the hearing, the appellant did not press the point regarding valuation.
We have considered the facts of the case. During the relevant time, as per Section 65(77b) ibid, ""Pandal & Shamiana Contractor Service"" defines
that "" Pandal & Shamiana Contractor means a person engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the preparation,
arrangement, erection or decoration of  Pandal or shamiana and includes the supply of furniture, fixtures, lights and lighting fittings, floor coverings
and other arlicles for used therein."" Under Section 65(77a) ibid, ""pandal or shamiana means that a place specially prepared or arranged for organizing
an official or business function."" Section 65(105)(zzw) ibid defined that ""the taxable service is any service provided to a client, by a pandal or shamiana
contractor in relation to a  Pandal or shamiana in any manner and also includes the services, if any, rendered as a caterer."" The appellant has
admitted that it was providing electrical lighting and decoration, etc. and therefore it is clearly covered within the scope of Section 77(b) ibid as
Pandal and Shamiana Contractor"". The said fittings and decoration were provided to prepare a place for social/official functions organised by
Tourism Department of Government of Rajasthan as mentioned in the impugned order and therefore the service rendered by the appellant clearly fell
within the definition under Section 65(105)(zzw) ibid. Indeed the relevant statutory provisions were so unambiguous that there was no scope for any
confusion. We also notice that in para 16 of the impugned Order-in-Original it is mentioned that the appellant actually charged service tax amounting
to Rs.9,62,787/- and thus its claim that it had a bona fide belief regarding non-taxability of service and there was no suppression of facts on its part is
totally untenable. The judgement of the Authority for Advance Rulings referred to by the appellant is not being analysed here because rulings of the
Authority for Advance Rulings did not constitute any binding precedent at all, although it may be mentioned, that in the said judgement, the said
Authority has made the following observation:-
As long as the supply of furniture, fixtures, lights and lighting fittings is in connection with the preparation, arrangement, erection or
decoration of a  Pandal or shamiana as defined in sub-section (77a) of the Act, the applicant would be covered by the definition of
'pandal or shamiana contractor.
In the light of the foregoing analysis, we find that the appeal has no merit and is therefore dismissed.