9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively. The appellant had paid the admitted taxes and deposited the returns and tax. In the course of audit for the period April 2007 to March, 2010 and on scrutiny and or comparison of the receipt figures as per profit and loss account and ledgers with those of the Service Tax Returns, it appeared to Revenue that the assessee-respondent had paid Service Tax short amounting to Rs. 15,31,161/-. The assessee on being so pointed out by the Revenue accepted the demand of Rs. 3,38,036/- and deposited the same for the period 2009-10. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 28/09/2012 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation demanding Service Tax of Rs. 15,31,161/- for the period April, 2007 to March, 2010 with further proposal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from service receiver namely V-Mart during 2009-10 from gross value of services covered in the impugned demand, on the ground that the amount pertain to the year 2009-10 for which period stay has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand of Service Tax for Rs. 11,86,787/- out of the adjudicated demand of Rs. 15,31,161/-. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) appropriated the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,38,036/- deposited by the respondent assessee in the year 2010-11. 3. The learned A.R. for the Revenue urges that they are in appeal on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in dropping the demand of Service Tax on the gross value of services amounting to Rs. 14,97,24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s violation of the principles of Natural Justice, as admittedly the assessee-respondent had filed reply to show cause notice on 04 February, 2014, but ignoring the same ex parte order was passed. In this view of the matter there are no merits in the appeal of Revenue. It is further urged that no case of suppression is made out against the respondent. The transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the balance-sheet and profit and loss account. The Revenue have wrongly demanded Service Tax on receipts prior to 01/06/2007 which have rightly been deleted by the Commissioner. So far demand of Service Tax on rent received from educational Institute- ICFAI is concerned the same have rightly been deleted. Further, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vable property or any other service in relation to such renting for use in the course of for furtherance of business or commerce. Further, Section 77 of the Finance Act, 2010 validated the action already taken in connection with the levy of Service Tax on renting of immovable property service. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013(31) STR 367 wherein this Tribunal observed that there was doubt regarding levy of tax on renting of immovable property and the same was put to an end by retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2010 neutralizing the ruling of Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retail (India) Ltd. vs. U.O. India, 2009 (14) STR 433. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
