JUDGMENT ORDER K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. This Court while admitting this appeal on 30-1-2013, framed following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that no Service Tax is leviable/payable on the charges collected in the name of booking of the Rooms which were integrally used in connection with the functions organized by the organizers in the adjacent gardens/and the payment for the entire premises was made by the organizers under a composite contract whereas the Service Tax is leviable on the gross amount charged from the customers under the category of Mandap Keeper services in terms of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 1994? 3. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the first authority where pursuant to the notice issued by the authority after considering the definition, it has observed as under :- "5.4 The issue before me for decision are that (i) whether the charges of room charged from the clients who entered under composite contract for holding/organizing the functions of marriage, conference and meetings are includible in the gross amount in terms of the Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and leviable to Service Tax under the provisions of Sections 66 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) if so, whether the same is recoverable under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act and also whether the assessee is liable for penal action under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5.5 To begin with, the legal provisions and the clarification issued by the Board need to be pondered upon, being the basis of the issuance of the subject notice :- (i) As per Section 65(66) of the Finance Act, 1994 Mandap means any immovable property as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (4 of 1982) and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein let out for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. [Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, social function includes marriage.] (ii) Further, as Section 65(67) of the Finance Act, 1994, Mandap Keeper means a person who allow temporary occupation of a Mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. [Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, social function includes marriage.] (iii) The taxable service for Mandap Keeper service has been defined under Section 65(105)(m) means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a Mandap Keeper in relation to the use of a mandap in any manner including the facilities provided or to be provided to such person in relation to such use and also services, if any, provided or to be provided as a caterer. (iv) As per Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, where Service Tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall, - (i) in a case where the provisions of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him; (ii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration not wholly or partially consisting of money, be such amount in money as, with the addition of Service Tax charged, is equivalent to consideration; (iii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner. (v) Further, Section 67(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 stipulated that the gross amount charged for taxable service shall include any amount received towards the taxable service before, during or after provision of such service. (vi) Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 provides that where certain expenditure or cost are incurred by the service provider in the course of providing any taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable services provided or to be provided and shall be included in the ''value'' for purpose of charging of Service Tax. This is a general rule which makes it clear that irrespective of the manner of billing such expenditure or costs are includable in the value of taxable service. This is a general rule which makes it clear that irrespective of the manner of billing such expenditure or costs are includable in the value of taxable service. Further explanation 2 to the rule clarifies that, the value of taxable service is the total amount of the consideration consisting of all components of taxable service and it is immaterial that the details of individual components of the total consideration is indicated separately in the invoices. (vii) The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide their letter F. No. 332/82/97-TRU, dated 24-9-1997 clarified that the hotels and restaurants which let out their banquet halls, rooms, gardens etc., for holding/organizing any marriages, parties, conferences, shows etc. are covered under the definition of a Mandap Keeper. It is essential to note that top attract the Service Tax on services rendered by Mandap Keeper it is mandatory that the Mandap Keeper has let out some room, space or hall for some period of time and during such period the room, space or hall is essentially in exclusive (temporary) possession of the person to whom it is so let out. In other words there is a certain exclusivity which has been afforded to the person to whom it has been let out. Further, the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide their Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 has clarified that Halls, rooms etc., let out by hotels/restaurants for a consideration for organizing social, official or business functions are covered within the scope of "Mandap" [Section 65(66)] and such hotels and restaurants are covered within the scope of "Mandap Keeper" [Section 65(67)]. Accordingly, Service Tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurants in relation to letting out of halls, rooms etc., for organizing any official, social or business function under Mandap Keeper Service [Section 65(105)(m)]. On plain reading of the above legal provisions and clarifications, it is clear that any service which is provided or to be provided to any person, by a Mandap Keeper in relation to the use of a mandap in any manner including the facilities provided or to be provided to such person in relation to such use and also services, if any, provided or to be provided as a caterer are liable to be taxed. Further, the value of taxable service is the total amount of the consideration consisting of all components of the total consideration is indicated separately in the invoices. 5.6 The assessee has contended that banquet hall/gardens of the hotel were let out for holding/organizing marriage, conference and meetings and no room were booked for holding/organizing marriage, conference and meetings, therefore, Service Tax on the room rent charges was not applicable. Here I find that the assessee have provided the banquet/conference halls and gardens to hold the functions of marriage, conference and meetings along with the rooms for stay of the persons who participated in such functions, under a composite contract. The rooms were booked by the clients for stay of their members/participants of such functions. Stay of the participants at a place where the function is organized is an important consideration for the organizer of the function while booking the mandap for holding the social or business function. The assessee has admitted that it is under a composite contract that the bookings are made. The stay of nonparticipants of any social or official function in their rooms is certainly out of the purview of the tax net under the said service, however in a given set of circumstances when the booking is composite and stay of the participants is in the same place as the mandap, then such rooms are an extension/integral part of the mandap. To take one example which is available on record, I have seen one of the letter which is a ''Revised Function Proposal for Mr. Luhadia''s event'' signed by one Shri Ram Rathore, Sales Manager wherein bookings were made for holding wedding and reception at Naksha Garden, Rambagh Palace. This is a relied upon document to the show cause notice. In the said proposal, Palace rooms, Historical Suites, Royal Suites, Grand Suites, Standard Rooms etc., were booked stating them as ''at a very special rates for this wedding'' The Historical Suites were offered at Luxury room rates. To sum up, it is most appropriate to say that these room bookings are nothing but the facilities provided by the Mandap Keeper to the clients for a consideration in relation to such use of the mandap. The interpretation of the definition of the service does not change depending upon the venue, whether it is a house or a kalyanmandapam or a five/six star hotel. The interpretation of the definition of the service does not change depending upon the venue, whether it is a house or a kalyanmandapam or a five/six star hotel. The entire premises including the rooms for stay become one mandap. Especially in an Indian Wedding, there are a number of functions being organized in the hall, garden as well as in the rooms whether booked for stay or otherwise, there is no reason to exclude them from the definition of mandap as entire booked area of the said hotel then is in relation to the said social function. The assessee has argued that even when booking are made by way of a composite contract or agreement, service is rendered, accounted for and billed separately the correct and true nature of the transactions has been reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the hotel. I find that merely because they have been billed separately does not take away the fact of these being integral part of the overall service provided in relation to holding of marriage/meeting/conference. Thus, it does not matter how the billing is done. Here the Mandap Keeper has let out some rooms for some period of time and during such period, the rooms are essentially in exclusive possession of the person to whom it is so let out for organizing the function. It is not the Mandap Keeper who would decide who would stay in the said rooms booked for the function but the customer to whom the said services are rendered in connection with the function, be it social or official. Similar is the case with other functions held in the hotel. Accordingly I hold that the services of renting of room is definitely part and parcel of the service provided in relation to holding of the functions of marriage/meetings/conference and as such are covered under the Mandap Keeper Service. Similar is the case with other functions held in the hotel. Accordingly I hold that the services of renting of room is definitely part and parcel of the service provided in relation to holding of the functions of marriage/meetings/conference and as such are covered under the Mandap Keeper Service. The amount charged in the name of renting of rooms to the participants of the marriage parties/conference/meetings is chargeable to Service Tax in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 being a consideration for the taxable services provided includible in the ''value'' for purpose of charging of Service Tax and it is immaterial whether it is." and contended that in view of the definition of the taxable service for Mandap Keeper Service in terms of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 1994, the matter is required to be considered. He has also further relied upon the order of the authority which reads as under :- "5.9 Further the assessee has requested not to impose penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act as they were under bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay tax and that in the absence of any contemptuous conduct or deliberate defiance on their part, no penalty is called for or warranted failure to pay Service Tax in the case and, therefore, the benefit of waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be extended. I find that once it is held that extended period is invocable in the case then the penal provisions as contained in Section 78 of the Act automatically follows and inescapable. I rely upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was held that "both the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 11A and Section 11AC use the same expressions : "....by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,..". In other words the conditions that would extend the normal period of one year to five years would also attract the imposition of penalty. In other words the conditions that would extend the normal period of one year to five years would also attract the imposition of penalty. It, therefore, follows that if the notice under Section 11A(1) states that the escaped duty was the result of any conscious and deliberate wrong doing and in the order passed under Section 11A(2) there is a legally tenable finding to that effect then the provision of Section 11AC would also get attracted." The provisions of Sections 73(1) and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 are pari materia to Sections 11A(1) and 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1994 and as such the said judgment is squarely on the issue. 5.10 Further I find that in this case the assessee had contravened the provisions of Sections 67 and 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they did not declare the correct value in their ST-3 returns filed and did not pay tax on the same. As a consequence of violating the civil obligation as contained in the statute, they are also liable to be penalized under Section 76 of the Act. In this regard, I rely on the judgment of Hon''ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Krishana Poduval, [2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.)] wherein it has been held that the penalty is impossible on both offences i. e. separately under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, ibid. I further find that interest at the applicable rates is also chargeable from them till the actual payment of Service Tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994." and contended that the view taken by the first authority was upheld by the appellate authority. He has relied upon, which reads as under : "Accordingly I hold that the services of renting of room is definitely part and parcel of the service provided in relation to holding of the functions of marriage/meetings/conference and as such are covered under the Mandap Keeper Service. He has relied upon, which reads as under : "Accordingly I hold that the services of renting of room is definitely part and parcel of the service provided in relation to holding of the functions of marriage/meetings/conference and as such are covered under the Mandap Keeper Service. The amount charged in the name of renting of rooms to the participants of the marriage parties/conference/meeting is chargeable to Service Tax in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 being a consideration for the taxable services provided includible in the ''value'' for purpose of charging of Service Tax and it is immaterial whether it is billed together or separately." Reference Code Issue Clarification 012.01/23- 8-2007 "Mandap" is defined as any immovable property as defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therin let out for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. [Section 56(66)] "Mandap Keeper" is defined as a person who allows temporary occupation of a mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function [Section 65(67)] Whether hotels/restaurants letting out their halls, rooms etc. for social, official or business functions fall within the definition of "mandap" and allowing temporary occupation of halls, rooms etc. by such hotels/restaurants for organizing any official, social or business function is liable to service tax under "Mandap Keeper Service" [Section 65(105)(m)]? Halls, rooms etc. let out by hotels/restaurants for a consideration for organizing social. Official or business function are covered within the scope of "mandap" [Section 65 (66)], and such hotels and restaurants are covered within the scope of "mandap keeper" [Section 65(67)]. Accordingly, service tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurants in relation to letting out of halls rooms etc. for organizing any official, social or business function under Mandap Keeper Service [Section 65(105)(m)]. 14. I have carefully gone through the case records, grounds of appeal and submissions made by appellant during personal hearing. The issue for consideration is whether Service Tax is leviable on the value of rent charges, charged from the customers in respect of the rooms booked by the appellant for the purpose of marriage, conference and meetings under a composite contract under the category of Mandap Keeper Services as per provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 1994. The issue for consideration is whether Service Tax is leviable on the value of rent charges, charged from the customers in respect of the rooms booked by the appellant for the purpose of marriage, conference and meetings under a composite contract under the category of Mandap Keeper Services as per provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 1994. I find that the adjudicating authority has held that the renting of rooms is part and parcel of service provided in relation to holding of functions of marriage, conference and meetings and as such are covered the category of Mandap Keeper Services. As such renting of rooms by the appellant for marriage, conference and meetings is very well covered under Mandap Keeper Services chargeable to Service Tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The contention of the appellant is that marriage does not tantamount to any social, official or Business function so they are not liable for payment of Service Tax, and they are not covered under the definition of Mandap Keeper under the Finance Act, 1994. I find that the definition of the Mandap, as contained under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 is wide in its scope, as it covers any immovable property as defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein, let out for consideration for services tax. The term ''Mandap'' has to be interpreted, as it has been defined and not otherwise. Thus, the term ''Mandap'' covers any immovable property, which is let out by any person for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. Further ''Mandap Keeper'' has been defined to mean a person who allows temporary occupation of a Mandap for consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. I find that all the point raised by the appellant has been discussed in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority and I agree with findings of adjudicating authority in this regard. In view to this, I hold that the rooms provided by the appellant even for temporary stay to the customers for organizing marriage conference and meetings is covered under definition of Mandap keeper. In view to this, I hold that the rooms provided by the appellant even for temporary stay to the customers for organizing marriage conference and meetings is covered under definition of Mandap keeper. Hence, any consideration received by the appellant on this account is also includible in the consideration received against Mandap Keeper Service, which is liable to Service Tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. I thus uphold the demand of Service Tax under chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. I thus uphold the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,05,143/- . Since demand is held to be sustainable on merits the appellant is also liable to pat interest thereon. Held accordingly. 1. I find that the appellant have not intimated the facts of recovering amount on account of renting of rooms and had suppressed the same with intent to evade payment of Service Tax, therefore demand for extended period is maintainable. Accordingly, I hold that the services provided by the appellant renting of rooms in connection with marriage ceremony is covered under the definition of Mandap Keeper''s Services during the relevant period and the gross amount charged for the services is the value of services for levy of service tax. Accordingly I hold that the demand has rightly been confirmed. 2. As regard, imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78, I find that, the demand has rightly been confirmed, violation of the provisions of Finance Act, 1944 by the appellant has been proved, therefore imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are sustainable in law. 3. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are different that from the cited cases by appellant, therefore, the ratio of the relied upon the case laws is not applicable in the instant case." 4. Counsel for the respondent contended that on contact being there, it is compulsory that rooms are included in the Mandap Keeper Services. The Tribunal has in para 4 has observed as under :- "4. Counsel for the respondent contended that on contact being there, it is compulsory that rooms are included in the Mandap Keeper Services. The Tribunal has in para 4 has observed as under :- "4. After hearing both sides we find that the Tribunal in the case of Merwara Estate vs. C.C.E., Jaipur reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 268 (Tri.- Del.) has held that renting of halls of hotels rooms cannot be held to be covered by the definition of ''Mandap Keeper'' inasmuch as the hotel has an identity, personality and function quite distinguishable from that of a mandap. In any case, we find that the activity entirely different from the Mandap Keeper activity. The definition of Mandap Keeper nowhere covers the temporary occupation of hotel rooms for the purpose of boarding, temporary residence. It is not disputed that no function is held in the hotel room which is used for the purpose of staying in the same. As such, we are of the view that the order of the lower authorities holding inclusion of the hotel rooms rent into the value of Mandap Keeper Service is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." 5. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the definition of Mandap Keeper Services which we have reproduced hereinabove, which clearly does not include the service and the Tribunal has rightly distinguished the Mandap service and the rooms rents received. 6. In our considered view, the view taken by the Tribunal is logical and requires to be accepted. 7. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee against the department. 8. The appeal is dismissed.