TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 2007-08. This would make the appellant pay a higher amount of interest - appellant argues that they have discharged the service tax liability along with interest by calculating the adjustment of advance received by them to the rent dues for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010 - matter is remanded for requantification. Penalties - Held that:- The issue whether renting of immovable property is liable to service tax was under litigation - The matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court - penalty imposed under Section 78(1) of the Act cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No.: ST/42818/2014 - Final Order No. 42540/2018 - Dated:- 1-10-2018 - Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand raised for the period 2007-08 which is not proper for the reason that the appellant would be burdened with higher amount of interest. 2.2 She submitted that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification by adjusting the advance received by the appellants towards the arrears of rent for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010. 2.3 The next point argued by the Ld. Counsel was with regard to the penalties imposed. She submitted that the issue whether Renting of Immovable Property Services is subject to levy of service tax was under litigation during the said period. The statutory provisions were amended with effect from 2010 so as to give the levy of service tax a retrospective applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant pay a higher amount of interest. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that they have discharged the service tax liability along with interest by calculating the adjustment of advance received by them to the rent dues for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010. We find that this contention is proper and we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification in the manner discussed above. 6. Coming to the penalties imposed, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has waived the penalty up to March, 2010 (till February, 2010). The Ld. Counsel has pleaded that the issue being interpretational, the penalties from March, 2010 also cannot sustain. From the decisions pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, we find that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
