TAMIL NADU TRDE PROMOTION Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent had rented their space for conducting trade fair/exhibition. The department wanted to levy service tax on the rental charges collected by them who were considered to be a "mandap keeper" within the meaning of this expression under Clause 67 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the party, demanding service tax on the above rental charged under Section 73 with interest thereon under Section 75 of the Finance Act. The SCN also proposed penalties on the party. These proposals were contested. The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax and interest thereon and imposed on the party penalties for non -payment of service tax and non -filing of statutory returns. The assessee's appeal against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.

(2.) After hearing both sides, I find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the Tribunal's decision in India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CCE Delhi for holding that service tax is not leviable on rental charges received for use of space for business activity. Admittedly, the respondents had rented out their premises to various agencies for trade fair/exhibition. Such trade fair/exhibition was a business activity distinguishable from "business function". According to Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994, "mandap keeper" means a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organising any official, social or business function. The distinction between "function" and "activity" was elucidated by the Tribunal in India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). It was held that "function" did not include "activity". It is only when the rented premises are used for orgadnising official or business function that the person renting out the premises comes within the purview of "mandap keeper" and then only rental charges received by him could be subjected to levy of service tax. In the instant case, the premises rented out by the respondents were used only for organising business activity and not for organising business function. Therefore, the respondents were not a "mandap keeper" as defined under Section 65(67) of Finance Act, 1994 and, consequently, no service tax was chargeable on their rental receipts. Ld. JDR has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. UOI , wherein it was held that taxable service could include providing of premises on a temporary basis for organising any official, social or business function. This judgment of the Apex Court is not of any aid to the Revenue, inasmuch as it was not held by the court that the providing of premises temporarily for organising any official, social or business activity was exigible to levy of service tax.

(3.) The issue in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the respondents by the Tribunal's decision in India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.