TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such the question of disclosing the activity of renting by the Appellants does not arise - Commissioner has not imposed any separate penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Composite penalty under different provisions of the statute is impermissible as held by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Precot Mills Ltd. [2006 (12) TMI 383 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - there were sufficient cause for not imposing various penalties - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos.S.T.323 & 390/11 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75005-75006/2014 - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - Dr. I. P. Lal, J. For the Appellant : Shri N. K. Chowdhury, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Biswas, Supdt.(A.R.) JUDGEMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for a period of three years starting from 1st January, 2006 to 31st December, 2008 while as the levy on renting activity was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2007. He submits that there was a confusion regarding levy of Service Tax on renting of the properties. Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. vs. Union of India : 2009 (14) S.T.R. 433 (Del.) did not agree with the contention of Revenue that renting out of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce put by itself constitute a taxable service and be exigible to Service Tax. The Hon ble High Court has held as under :- 35. From the analysis, it is clear that we have to understand as to whether renting of immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said provision is not correct. Consequently, the same are ultra vires the said Act and to the extent that they authorize the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property per se, they are set aside. It is the submission that thereafter retrospective amendment was made by virtue of which the said activity became taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (which is the date of introduction of Service Tax on rent of premises). Later on the Hon ble Court in its order dated 23.09.2011 in case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. vs. Union of India : 2011 (24) S.T.R. 129 (Del.) upheld the retrospective amendment. Subsequently the matter was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and Hon ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty was itself in dispute as would be evident from the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi cited (supra) besides Appellants are Doctors by profession and immediately after pointing out their liability towards Service Tax, they as a law-abiding citizen paid their entire liability of Service Tax along with interest. In view of these facts I do not find that the Appellants did not disclose their activity of rendering the taxable service with intention to evade payment of Service Tax. 5.4 It is further observed that adjudicating Commissioner has not imposed any separate penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Composite penalty under different provisions of the statute is impermissible as held by this Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
