VOLTAS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. KKS (26) 26/STC/2009, dated 30 -3 -2009. Heard both sides and perused the records.

(2.) LEARNED Chartered Accountant after taking us through the show cause notice and the impugned order as well as the Order -in -Original would submit that the appellants were discharging the Service Tax liability under the category of "mandap keeper". Subsequently a new entry was brought into the statute in the form of "convention centre services" with effect from 16 -7 -2001 that the appellant had in fact indicated to the audit party that they were using HRD Centre mainly for their own function and also provide the said facility to outsiders for conducting the meeting, functions, etc., the said activity would fall strictly under the category of mandap keeper and not under the category of convention centre services. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Taj View Hotel v. CCE, Kanpur - : 2014 (7) TMI 160 -CESTAT, New Delhi : 2014 (36) S.T.R. 888 (Tri. -Del.), CCE, Cochin v. Casino Hotel - : 2010 (19) S.T.R. 425 (Tri. -Bang.) and CCE, Cochin v. Avenue Regent - : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 284 (Tri. -Bang.) to submit that these case laws support his view.

(3.) LD . DR would reiterate the findings of the first appellate authority and also submit that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of 40% abatement under Notification No. 21/1997.