9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Ltd. (IHCL) for running, conducting and operating. 2. The appellant has been represented by Ms. Aparna, ld. advocate and the Revenue has been represented by Mr. Sanjay Jain, ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Ld. advocate for the appellant inter alia submits as under:- (i) There is specific exclusion for building used for accommodation including hotels under Explanation 1 to Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the same is not taxable under renting of immovable property service. (ii) In support of her contention, she relies upon the following decisions:- a) Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2014 (36) STR 669 (Tri.-Del.)] b) Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEST, Jaipur-I [2014-TIOL-215 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) ... (Emphasis applied)" 5.1 Explanation 1 to Section 65(105) (zzzz) of the Act makes it very clear that buildings used for residential purposes and accommodation including hotels cannot be covered under the wordings "immovable property". In the present case, there is no dispute on the fact that the entire property/space named as 'Hotel Chandela' is used as hotel only; when it is so, Revenue's stand that the service tax is liable for the renting of subject property is not correct and is untenable in the eyes of law. In this regard, the observations made by the Tribunal in the case of Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra) in paras 9 - 10 of the said decision are reproduced below:- "9. In our considered view the above interpr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause and does not amount to an "immovable property", falling within the ambit of the taxable service in issue. 5.2 Further, CESTAT in the case of Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEST, Jaipur-I (supra) has observed as under:- "3. Revenue by entertaining a view that the appellant are under obligation to pay service tax under the category of renting of immovable property initiated proceedings against them, which resulted in passing of the present impugned orders. At this stage, we find that the issu is no more res integra and the Tribunal in the case of 2014-TIOL-992-CESTAT-DEL has held that leasing/renting of immovable property for a hotel is expressly excluded from the ambit of the taxable service under Section 65 (105) (zzzz)." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
