TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Notice of 25.02.2014. But apparently it was issued after the proposal of rejection was confirmed vide original adjudicating authority’s order dated 18.05.2015. With the said rejection, the immunity from interest and penalty as was available to the appellant under VCES Scheme was no more available to them. Irrespective of the said rejection, the fact remains is that the service tax of ₹ 4,50,756/- stands deposited with the Department since 30.12.2013. Hence, the issuance of impugned Show Cause Notice is apparently qua the demand which stands already deposited. Penalty - Held that:- It is an apparently admitted fact that the Department has knowledge of non payment of the impugned demand since the year 2011. It is also being conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax dues of ₹ 4,50,756/- alongwith interest and penalty. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 1 dated 18.05.2015. It is thereafter that the impugned Show Cause Notice no 1216 dated 01.03.2016 was issued proposing the recovery of the service tax on ₹ 4,50,756/- consequent to the rejection of the said VCES application. The said recovery has been confirmed vide the Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2017. Being aggrieved the appeal was preferred before Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order No. 53 dated 31.05.2018 has upheld the Order of rejection. Still being aggrieved Appeal is before us. 2. I have heard Mr. Rahul Lekhwani, Ld. Advocate for the appellant who has submitted that the impugned Show Cause Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng both the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that prior to the impugned Show Cause Notice, another Show Cause Notice dated 25.02.2014 was served upon the appellant proposing the rejection of VCES application as was filed by him on 30.12.2013 for payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 4,50,756/- on renting of immovable property services for the period w.e.f. October, 2008 to March, 2010. The said proposal has been decided against the appellant. The demand in the impugned Show Cause Notice and the period in dispute is same. It becomes clear that the appellant has not disputed their liability of service tax amounting to ₹ 4,50,756/-, as demanded vide the present Show Cause Notice. No doubt the present Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant received the service tax from his tenants for the impugned period only in January 2012. Appellants on their own had deposited the same in the VCES Scheme. Irrespective the said deposition has been rejected, the only consequence is that the appellants are not entitled for the immunity flowing from the said scheme and the benefits thereof but the fact remains is there is nothing on part of the appellant which can be held as wilful mis-representation or wilful suppression of the facts. In absence thereof no question arises of invoking proviso 2 Section 73 of the Act for imposing penalty upon the appellant. The Order to that extent is therefore liable to be set aside. 6. As a result of entire above discussion the Order under challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
