9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the 'Tribunal'). Vide the said order, the Tribunal has refused to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure A-10) wherein pre-deposit on the entire amount was ordered, during the pendency of the first appeal. 2. The questions of law that arises for consideration is as under: "a) Whether in the light of amended Section 35F order to deposit entire amount of adjudicated service tax is justified? b) Whether order passed by the ld. Tribunal is perverse and contrary to facts and circumstances of the case? &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dues and violations which had been made by the appellant. 5. Accordingly, an order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure A-9) was passed by the Adjudicating Authority, wherein a finding was recorded that a sum of Rs. 2,80,00,000/- had been received as rent and the service tax liability was worked out at Rs. 31,86,820/- as the appellant had not got himself registered nor paid service tax and there was violation of Section 68, 69, 70, 73(1) of the Finance Act read with Rule 7(4) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Act was invoked and it was held that it was also liable to pay interest on the evaded service tax, apart from the demand of Rs. 31,86,820/- along with penalty of Rs. 200/- per day, duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery on one side and the value of the land and building on the other, has been taken on a exaggerated basis whereas the approved valuer's report only showed an amount of Rs. 72,26,186/-. It was, accordingly, submitted that the rent was not in ratio to the value of the assets of plant and machinery and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified by denying the relief regarding the pre-deposit. 8. Counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, supported the order and submitted that the discretion exercised was not lightly to be interfered with and under the provisions of the Act, the service was taxable and only on account of the audit of M/s Kapsons Industries, the factum of the violation had been detected and in such circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had been brought in to the service net w.e.f. 01.06.2007 vide notification dated 22.05.2007. The explanation to Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act provide that renting of immoveable property includes use of immoveable property, factories, office buildings, warehouses plus for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce. Sub-section (105)(zzzz) also provides that taxable service means providing of any service by renting of immoveable property The argument that as per the amended lease deed dated 29.03.2011, the building was only let out for Rs. 55,000/- per month and the rest of the amount was only on account of the rent of the immoveable plant and machinery, which was moveable and not covered under the Act, prima facie, canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tings and other infrastructural facilities as particularly described in the schedule attached hereto together with all attachments, whatever belonging to and hereto together with all attachments, whatsoever belonging to and hereto enjoyed by the Lessor unto 'The Lease' from, the first day of April, 1997 for a period of ten years during which period 'The Lessee' shall pay the sum of Rs. 7,00,000 (Rupees Seven Lacs only) per month as divided into Rs. 55,000.00 (Rupees fifty five thousand only) per month for the use of land & building and the balance of Rs. 6,45,000.00 (Rupees six lacs forty five thousand only) per month for the use of all other facilities as rent w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 in advance on or before the 10th of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration at the hearing of the appeal. Moreover, needless to clarify that the observations herein and in the impugned order would not affect the parties at the hearing of the appeal. 14. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion which has been exercised and where the benefit of pre-deposit has been restricted to a reasonable amount, in favour of the appellant. However, since an interim order had been passed in favour of the appellant on 24.12.2014 that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lacs towards service tax, which is stated to have been deposited, liberty is granted to the appellant to deposit the balance outstanding amount within a period of 2 months, from the date of this order. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
