1. The stay application arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded service tax of Rs. 3,01,858.37 and imposed various penalties under Sections 76,77,78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner held that the service provided by the applicant fall under the service "Convention services" whereas, the applicant claims that these services are defined under "Mandap Keeper".
The applicant relies on circular dated 09.07.2001 wherein, it is clarified as to what these two services constitute for the purpose of levy of service tax. The circular also clarifies that if a service provider is already registered as a Mandap Keper and paying service tax, he is not liable to pay service tax again under the category of convention service. The ld. Advocate argued that larger period of limitation is not invocable as the Department was aware of the nature of service provided by him and such services always were understood as 'Mandap Keeper Service'. The Commissioner however, relied upon a subsequent circular No. ST-51/13/2002 dtd. 07/01/2003, and held that the applicant was providing a service which is specifically covered under 'Convention service' and has failed to register himself attracting penal provision as well as invocation of larger period of limitation.
2. Heard both sides. It is evident form the nature of services such as the ones provided (conference facilities, overhead projectors, table mikes etc,) do fall under convention service as clarified by the Board.
The fact that these kind of services were rendered could only be known when bills raised by the applicant on its customers were scrutinized.
The charge of suppression can be said to have been established when something material to the issue under consideration is not disclosed by the service provider. However in so far as imposition of penalties are concerned, we observe that earlier view that a person who is registered as a Mandap Keeper need not again register himself as a Convention service provider, makes the applicant believe that he does not have to register himself again. Even the Circular issued in the year 2003 makes this point clear. In this view of the matter, we see prima facie no justification for the Commissioner to impose a penalty under Sections 76,77,78 of the Act. We find that a prima facie case exists in favour of the department in regard to tax liability. We, accordingly, direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards service tax within eight weeks and on such deposit, pre-deposit of balance service tax and penalties shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of say and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.