Order Date – 28 June 2023

Parties: M/s Confederation Of Indian Industry Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-I

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Confederation of Indian Industry, opted for centralized Registration being a Northern Region Head Quarter and the permission was granted for the same by the Commissioner on 24.02.2005 for the Mandap Keeper Service, Exhibition Services & Management Consultancy services etc. Further after addition of few more new services, the Centralized registration was granted by the Commissioner on 16.12.2008.
• During the course of audit it was observed that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the convention services provided by them for the period 18.04.2006 to 15.05.2008 which appeared to be recoverable along with interest.
• Further demand was also raised on differential amount arrived on reconciliation of balance sheet and amount received under Modular Employment Scheme during the period 2009-10 and 2010-11

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is liable to discharge service tax?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the convention service is taxable only when it is provided to some person “in relation to holding of a convention”. Wherein in the present case, we find that the appellant do not provide any service to any person in relation to the holding of a convention. The issue has further been clarified vide CBEC Circular No. 51/13/2002 dated 07.01.2003.
• Once the convention is open to general public, then it is not a convention within the meaning of ‘Convention’ under service tax law and consequently no demand of service tax can be raised on convention service.
• As far as the demand of service tax on annual general meeting under convention service, the demand is not sustainable as the annual general meeting is organized for the members themselves as it is a members organization and the members meet in annual general meeting to discuss various issues relating to the organization and accounts etc.
• The demand based on differential amount under convention service is concerned, we are of the opinion that this demand is also not sustainable as the figures in the balance sheet reflects the income and expenditure of the organization and has nothing to do with the liability or payment of service tax.
• Further the demand of service tax on reimbursement of electricity charges are set-aside as there is no nexus between electricity reimbursement and service provided. The show cause notices failed to provide under which category service tax is demanded on receipt under Modular Employment Scheme. In the absence of any specific category, the demand of service tax is vague and liable to be dropped as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 487 (S.C.)
• Hence the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to set-aside. The appeal is allowed.

Case laws on gst