Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
DR. C. SATAPATHY, D.N. PANDA, JJ.
Merwara Estates -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO. ST/162 OF 2009 APPEAL NO. ST/347 OF 2006-CUS (BR)
Decided On : 29-04-2009
Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member. - Heard both sides.
2. Shri Atul Gupta, learned C.S. appearing for the appellant states that the appellants are running a hotel which has two gardens adjacent to it. The appellants are not disputing payment of service tax when gardens are rented out as Mandaps. The hotel is separately registered and in a year 16 times hotel rooms and garden were simultaneously rented out. It is the appellant’s case that Service Tax is not leviable on that portion of the realisation which is attributed to the renting of the hotel rooms.
3. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar, ld. DR appearing for the revenue who supports the impugned order and cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajmahal Hotel v. CCE [2006]
4. We find that a prima facie view was taken at the stay stage that the appellants are not liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the charges recovered for renting of the hotel. The only submission by the revenue now is that the cited decision in the case of Rajmahal Hotel (supra) supports the revenue’s case. However, we find that the said decision only authorises levy of Service Tax on renting of halls attached to the hotel but not in respect of renting of the hotel rooms. As such, we confirm the prima facie view taken by the Tribunal earlier and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
