TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulated - matter on remand. Service Tax on renting of infrastructural facilities - extended period of limitation - Held that:- The issue needs to be examined on the basis of facts and provisions of law. Further, the cum duty benefit also need to be extended to the appellant - the levy was charged w.e.f. 01.06.2007 though the notification was issued on 22.06.2010. Therefore, there cannot be any malafide intention for evasion of duty from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010. Therefore, extended period of limitation for the period from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010 is not applicable in the present case - matter remanded back to the Original Authority with a direction to recalculate service tax leviable for the period from 23.06.2010 to 31.03.2012 by taking into consideration the provision under Section (zzzz) - matter on remand. Business Auxiliary Service - Demand of service tax on Centage charges - Held that:- It is appropriate to remand this matter to the Original authority with direction to examine whether the work undertaken for supervision of construction by the appellant is in respect of such work which is wholly funded by Central or State Government and if the said construction work is wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice. Further, equal penalty was also imposed. ii) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that through the Finance Act, 2017 Section 104 of Finance Act, 1994 has been introduced. The said provision has provided that service tax not to be levied on one time upfront amount like lump-sum amount collected by the appellant with effect from 01.06.2007 till 21st September, 2016, if the said lump-sum amount is collected by State Government Industrial Development Corporation in respect of industrial plots leased for more than 30 years. He has further submitted that all the requirements of said Section 104 are complied with in the present case, since the lease of the land is of 90 years and the land was let-out for the purpose of industrial units and it was let-out by State Government Industrial Development Corporation. iii) The learned A.R. for revenue has agreed that the issue is covered by said Section 104 of Finance Act, 1994. iv) We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 104 ibid and facts of the case and we find that the vacant land was given as industrial plots for the purpose of industrial units by State Government Industrial Development Corporation f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority of law to collect service tax from 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2010. iii) Learned A.R. for revenue has submitted that the Original authority in his impugned order has pointed out that though litigations were going on, however, the appellant did not seek any clarification from the Department about admissibility of levy nor they sought any opinion from any consultant or legal experts to arrive at any conclusion about whether service tax is payable or not and therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of litigations going on somewhere else to avoid levy of service tax during extended period. iv) We have carefully gone through the provisions of law and submissions made by both the sides. We note that with retrospective effect on renting of immovable property was subjected to levy of Service Tax and vacant land was brought under the same with effect from 01.07.2010. However, we note that the notification for said levy after passing of Finance Act, 2010 was issued to 22.06.2010. Further, we note that show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2012 and also that on the date of issuance of show cause notice normal period of limitation under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was 18 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was confirmed by extending limitation period and cum duty benefit was also not provided. He argued that the demand is also not sustainable. iii) Learned A.R. has submitted that residential buildings are not included in the levy. iv) We have carefully gone through the provisions of law and we find that the issue needs to be examined on the basis of facts and provisions of law. Further, the cum duty benefit also need to be extended to the appellant. We also note that the levy was charged w.e.f. 01.06.2007 though the notification was issued on 22.06.2010. Therefore, there cannot be any malafide intention for evasion of duty from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010. Therefore, extended period of limitation for the period from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010 is not applicable in the present case. We further find that other observations in the sub-para-b above are also applicable in the present case. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the Original Authority with a direction to recalculate service tax leviable for the period from 23.06.2010 to 31.03.2012 by taking into consideration the provision under Section (zzzz) and not to impose any penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
