TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NI, SURINDER KAUR, JASWINDER SINGH, PARMOD KUMAR CHAUDHARY, SUKHJEET JODHA VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH-I [ 2017 (1) TMI 101 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where reliance placed in Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nasik Vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel [2015 (9) TMI 790 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein this Tribunal has held that the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental receipts and not collective one, benefit on notification was extended. As the issue has already decided by this Tribunal and the rent received by the appellant remains within the threshold l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Immovable Property Service . As the rent is more than ₹ 10,00,000/-, accordingly, they are not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005. In these set of facts, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the same was adjudicated which was converted into the impugned order. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Considering the fact that whether being a co-owner, the appellant is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005 or not? The said issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Anil Saini (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded wrongly by the department from the appellants by clubbing the rent received by all the co-owners and, therefore, the demand of tax is not maintainable on this ground alone. In support they have produced a City survey Extract as evidence regarding ownership of the rented property which shows that the said property was purchased in 2003 and is owned jointly by all the four co-owners. Further, the lease agreements with M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Standar Life Insurance Ltd. are also entered into by the appellants in their individual capacity, as per SCN also, all four co-owners have obtained separate Registration Certificate on 10-4-2012 and all the four c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 44,28,360/- But as the rent was distributed equally among each of the appellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than ₹ 8 lakhs and 10 lakhs in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively which is below the exemption limit of eight lakhs and ten lakhs during the relevant period. The appellants were, therefore, not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received by them during these two years by virtue of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The appellant s case is also supported by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Dinesh K. Patwa v. CST, Ahmedabed which is referred in para 3(ii) above. However, in the Financial Year 2009-10 and 2010-22, the recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai Patel is only referred to which was recorded on 22-2-2012 which is 8 days after the appellants had paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of facts etc. on their part with any intention of evade service tax cannot be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant s contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if the service tax not levied or paid was paid along with interest by the person concerned before service of notice on him and informed the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
