9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immovable property service, liable for payment of service tax. For providing such service, the appellant is registered with service tax department. During the disputed period, the appellant had rented its property to one of its customers namely, Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd. For providing the property on rent, the appellant had issued monthly rental invoices along with applicable service tax to the said customer. However, while making payment of service tax amount into the Government exchequer, the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 24/2007-ST dated 22.05.2007. Since, the benefit of the said notification was availed by the appellant, which was not passed on to the customer, the department initiated show cause proceedings aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applicable. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that the provisions of Section 73A ibid have been rightly invoked by the department in confirming the amount in question inasmuch as at the time of claiming the benefit of notification dated 22.05.2007, the appellant had not passed on the benefit of service tax to its customer. He further submits that there was possibility of availment of excess Cenvat credit by the customer and under such circumstances, if the amount cannot be recovered under Section 73A ibid, the appellant would be unjustly enriched at the cost of the Government exchequer. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch it cannot be said that in terms of the provisions of Section 11D, the respondents have collected any duty from their customers representing the same as excess duty. As such, demand in terms of Section 11D is not required to be confirmed against the respondents. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected." 7. The above decision of the Tribunal though was rendered under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but the ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the provision of 11D ibid and Section 73A ibid are pari materia. 8. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
