9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Renting of Immovable Property Service' during the financial year 2010- 11 amounting to Rs. 1,16,381/-. Similarly for financial year 2011-12, a sum of Rs. 36,479/- has been held to be payable by the appellant assessee. It also alleged non-payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,39,633/- under the category of 'security deposit'/'renting of immovable property'. The show cause notice also proposed to impose penalty under section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(d) and section 70 and 78 of the said Act. The adjudicating authority passed the following order:- "a) I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,16,381/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty one) only as Service Tax including both Cess and order to appropriate Rs. 1,16,381/- paid vide challa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posable under section 77(1)(d) of the said act as amended for gross violation of Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1994. Further the assessee may refrain from payment of this penalty if they pay penalty imposed by availing the benefit of clause (ii) of the second proviso to sub-sec (1) of section 78 of Finance Act 2015 as mentioned in part (f) of this order above." On appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal before him. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority had dropped the alleged Service Tax demand upon security deposit amounting to Rs. 1,39,633/-. That the tax on account of 'Renting of Immo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,16,381/- and Rs. 36,479/- which is quite less than the original demand. On perusal of the records it is observed that the appellant has paid the entire demand much before the issuance of the show cause notice. Interest has also been deposited. 6. I further find that the issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. REFRESHMENT & ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIPUR reported in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 281 (Tri. - Del.). The relevant paras of the said decision are reproduced below :- "7. Other than above points, we note that there is a demand for Rs. 11,47,291/- under the category of renting of immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was inserted to avoid penalizing the assessees as the matter was contentious one and there were several judgments in favour of assessees also. The relevant portion of the Finance Bill in introducing sub-section (2) of Section 80 as quoted in the appeal is as under......6. It is seen that if the assessee fails to avail the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 80, then the assessee has to be treated as though sub-section (2) of Section 80 did not exist. It nowhere says that in case of failure to avail benefit under subsection (2) of Section 80, the benefit under sub-section (1) of Section 80 will be taken away. As per sub-section (1) of Section 80 if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure, then no penalty shall be imposable........ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
