{"id":16486,"date":"2018-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2018-11-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T18:30:00","slug":"m-s-interface-trade-fair-pvt-ltd-versus-commissioner-of-gst-central-excise-coimbatore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=16486","title":{"rendered":"M\/s. Interface Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Interface Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>2019 (2) TMI 86 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMI<br \/>CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; AT<br \/>Dated:- 20-11-2018<br \/>Appeal No. ST\/422\/2012 &#8211; Final Order No. 43024\/2018<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)<br \/>\nNone for the Appellant<br \/>\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent<br \/>\nORDER<br \/>\nPer Bench<br \/>\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing business exhibition service and it was noticed that they had not discharged the service tax on the consideration received. Show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 99,659\/- along with interest and also for imposing penalti<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=374459\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>t from 10.9.2004. They were under the confusion whether the exhibition conducted by them would fall under event management or business exhibition service. From October 2004 to December 2004, they had conducted two exhibitions at Madurai and Coimbatore. Service tax was not collected separately for the business exhibition service since the confusion existed and not paid to the Government. When the Preventive Unit visited the premises, as per the instructions, the appellants have paid the service tax. However, the quantification of service tax as per the show cause notice is erroneous and they are liable to pay service tax only to the tune of Rs. 76,078\/- only after adjusting CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,405\/-. It is also requested to waive the pen<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=374459\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>e introduced, with effect from 10.9.2004. They did not discharge the service tax for the reason of confusion as to the classification of service. On being instructed by the department in January 2005, they had remitted the service tax. It is also brought out that the appellants have not collected service tax separately and therefore the amount received should be considered as cum-tax value. The request of the appellant is reasonable and tenable. We therefore hold that the adjudicating authority shall requantify the service tax after giving the cum-tax benefit as well as the CENVAT credit benefit to the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act to set aside the penalties impo<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=374459\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s. Interface Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise CoimbatoreService Tax2019 (2) TMI 86 &#8211; CESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; TMICESTAT CHENNAI &#8211; ATDated:- 20-11-2018Appeal No. ST\/422\/2012 &#8211; Final Order No. 43024\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) None for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=16486\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;M\/s. Interface Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST &#038; Central Excise Coimbatore&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}