TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that the appellant also has obtained registration in terms of provisions of Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act) read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as service provider; that the appellant provided service of renting of immovable property and recovered an amount of Rs. 25,44,000/- in the financial year 2007-08, as obtained from their balance sheet and profit and loss account in the said period, and however, the appellant has failed to take registration or amend the existing registration to pay the service tax on the said service; that basing on the above facts, a SCN dated 5-3-2009 was issued to the appellant directing show cause as to why the service tax of Rs. 2,62,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice performed at Mumbai and the appellant relies on the following decisions - (a) CCE v. Ores India Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 513 (Tri.) = 2009 (91) RLT 181 (T), (b) Vimal Nath v. UOI - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 592 (Bombay High Court), (c) Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 400 (T). (d) TELCO v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 305 (T), (e) Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 665 (T), (f) Maersk India Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 150 (T); (iii) that the appellant has already obtained registration from jurisdictional authorities in Mumbai for renting of immovable property and the appellant paid service tax and filed returns and hence the present SCN does not have any j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal memorandum, the Advocate stressed that the Assistant Commissioner, Ratnagiri does not have jurisdiction, as the issue involved is confined to Mumbai and further he relied on the following decisions - (a) CCE, C ST, BBSR II v. Ores India (P) Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 513 (Tri.) = 2009 (91) RLT 181(CESTAT-Kol.) (b) Vimal Nath v. UOI - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 592 (Bom.) (c) Birla Corporation Ltd. - 2003 (161 ) E.L.T. 665 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 400 (T) and 4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH. After waiving pre-deposit, I take the main appeal itself for final decision. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner, Ratnagiri has confirmed service tax amount of Rs. 2,62,03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration at Mumbai and paid service tax amount and also filed returns. I have perused the service tax registration, which has been granted on 29-1-2009 in pursuant to application dated 30-9-2008 by the appellant. I have also perused GAR-7 dated 31-1-2009 wherein the appellant paid Rs. 2,55,470/- under protest and penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant also has filed ST3 returns for the financial year 2007-08. The appellant, while replying to the SCN, had also mentioned that he has obtained registration and enclosed copy of registration. But it is unfortunate that the Assistant Commissioner, Ratnagiri has not considered the same and he went ahead with confirmation of duty along with interest, besides, imposing equal penalty and other penaltie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
