TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al finding that the building have been given to M/s. Travelline International for carrying out the hotel business which consist 4 Conference Halls apart from rooms, kitchen, bar room etc. and thus the hotel was not used exclusively for residential or personal accommodation purposes - there is no discrepancy in the said reasoning of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of any evidence produced by the assessee-appellant, rebutting the said findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. ST/89836/2013 & ST/85151/2014 - A/86894-86895/2018 - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) None for Assessee Shri M. Suresh Dy. Commr. (A.R) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the demand and imposition of penalty, the assessee is in Appeal. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that further adjournment would not serve any purpose, consequently, the appeals are taken up after hearing the Ld. AR for the Revenue. 5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterating the revenue's grounds and the demand upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in reducing the demand by ₹ 1,60,371/-, that is, the Service Tax on the notional interest amount collected as deposit by the appellant from the service recipient in providing the taxable service under the category of renting of immovable property. Further, he submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se in the course or furtherance of business or commerce and partly for residential or any other purposes shall be deemed to be immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce. We do not find any discrepancy in the said reasoning of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of any evidence produced by the assessee-appellant, rebutting the said findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). While confirming the den-land the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the amount of ₹ 1,60,371/- calculated on the notional interest amount of deposit, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority observing that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to establish that the amount received as deposit had influenced the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, by way of complete waiver of penalty in cases where Service Tax alongwith interest for the period upto March, 2012 was paid in full within a period of 6 month from the date of enactment of Finance Bill-2012 i.e. on or before 27.11.2012. However, I find that the Appellants in their written submissions, submitted at the time of hearing on 12.07.2013, have stated that they have deposited only ₹ 26 lacs out of the total liability of ₹ 31,66,217/- As such penalty cannot be waived under Section 80(2) of the Act. In view of above, I conclude, that the Appellants are not liable to penalty, under Section 78 of the Act, on the amount of Service Tax payable during the period 1.06.2007 to 8.05.2010 which comes to ₹ 20,52,544 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
