TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case is 25.11.2012. Prior to this date on 28.05.2012, section 73(1) of the Finance Act was amended and it was provided that the Central Excise Officer could issue a notice within eighteen months from the relevant date. The show cause notice was issued on 08.05.2014, which would be within eighteen months from 25.11.2012 - Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed no illegality in holding that the demand for the period 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 was within the statutory period of eighteen months from the relevant date. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53409 OF 2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 51698/2021 - Dated:- 4-8-2021 - MR. DILIP G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ the Finance Act ] and made taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is reproduced below: 2. Whereas, it has been gathered that the noticee had rented out its immovable properties to various business firms/individuals for furtherance of their business on periodical rent/lease amounts. The service provided by the notice against receipt of certain amount falls under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service and the amount so received is forming part of the taxable value w.e.f. 01.06.2007. 6. ******* The notice collected an amount of ₹ 82,67,227/- from the business firms/individuals client as Allotment Fee but on the said amount no S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: 8. I find that in the appeal, the adjudicating authority vide impugned order has confirmed service tax demand on renting of immovable property, wherein period of demand is from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. As held by Hon ble Tribunal, there is no service tax liability after 01.07.2012. Following the judicial discipline, I am inclined to conclude that the appellant s renting of immovable property services provided to brokers/traders for agriculture purpose fall under clause (d) of Negative List specified under Section 66(D) of the Finance Act, 1994. I therefore hold that they are not liable to pay service tax on renting of immovable property services provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod 01.04.2012 to 28.05.2012 is barred by limitation; and ii. Section 73(1) of the Finance Act was amended with effect from 28.05.2012 and the period of limitation was extended to 18 months. It is settled law that the amendment in the period of limitation cannot revive a dead claim. Thus, the demand for the period 01.04.2012 to 28.05.2012 will be governed by the period of limitation existing before amendment. 7. Dr. Radhe Tallo learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department, however, supported the impugned order. 8. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department have been considered. 9. Section 73(1) of the Finance Act deals with recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt date . 11. There is no dispute that the relevant date in the present case is 25.11.2012. Prior to this date on 28.05.2012, section 73(1) of the Finance Act was amended and it was provided that the Central Excise Officer could issue a notice within eighteen months from the relevant date. The show cause notice was issued on 08.05.2014, which would be within eighteen months from 25.11.2012. 12. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed no illegality in holding that the demand for the period 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 was within the statutory period of eighteen months from the relevant date. 13. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is, accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
