9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed by the primary authority. . 3. A show cause notice was issued on 10.9.2010 alleging that audit of the assessee from 22.6.09 to 26.6.09 for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 revealed that the assessee company had received Rs.14,40,000/- on renting of immovable property for commercial purpose and was liable to remit service tax along with the appropriate interest thereon. Liability to penalty was also indicated in the show cause notice. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Faridabad IV passed the adjudication order dated 28.2.2012 confirming a service tax demand of Rs.1,77,984/- apart from interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It requires to be noticed that in response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or receipt; this would have revealed whether the assessee was a recipient or the provider, of the taxable service renting of immovable property. 5. Against the adjudication order, the assessee preferred an appeal specifically contending that rent was being charged by Directors of the appellant company Shri N.D. Ahuja and Shri Yogesh Ahuja individually and not by the appellant. This contention was not rejected by the Appellate authority on the ground that this was a new ground raised for the first time in the appeal and was not raised either in reply to the show cause notice or during course of the adjudication proceedings. The Appellate authority merely referred to Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 which disentitles an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s purport to create a landlord and tenant relationship between N.D. Ahuja and Yogesh Ahuja on the one hand (the landlords) and the assessee company M/s Astron Polymers Pvt. Ltd., on the other (the tenant). Under these agreements, the appellant M/s Astron Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is clearly a leasee of the immovable property and not provider of the said taxable service. Consequently, there would be no liability to service tax on the appellant. These rental agreements do not however present a coherent picture as to whether the tenant is the appellant or the othe director of the appellant who is a party to each of the agreements. N.D. Ahuja and Yogesh Ahuja are referred to as the landlord and the tenant alternatively in the two agreements. Towards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
