9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.04.15 (i) I confirm the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,93,48,186/- (Rupees One crore ninety three lakhs forty eight thousand one hundred & eighty six only) under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act 1994. (ii) I confirm the demand of interest on the demand confirmed at (i) above at the appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994. (iii) I imposed a penalty of Rs. 96,74,093/- (Rupees Ninety six lakhs seventy four thousand & ninety three only) under provisions of amended Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 with an option for payment of only 25% of the amount confirmed at (i) above as penalty, provided conditions laid down under clause (ii) to the second proviso & third proviso to Section 78(1) of Finance Act 1994 are satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 67 which stated that consideration includes any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant, as detailed below:- Sr. No. File No. Show Cause Notice No. and date Amount in Rs. 1 V-Adj/STVII/ VCPPL/15- 32/2015 ST VII/Dn III/Gr IV/135/VCPL/2015 dated 13.04.2015 1,93,48,186/- 2 V-Adj/STVII/ VCPPL/15- 01/2016 ST VII/Dn III/Gr IV/135/VCPL/2015 dated 04.04.2015 1,05,66,073/- The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner as per the impugned order referred to in para 1 above. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 2.4 We have heard Shri Bhavin Gandhi, Chartered Accountant, for the appellant and Shri Dil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y deposit, which is nothing but advance, Revenue cannot state that such security deposit will earn interest, and notional interest needs to be taxed. We find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Murli Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra) squarely cover the issue in favour of appellant herein as the said judgment of the Tribunal is on identical issue." 3.3 Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating as follows:- "ORDER Delay condoned. The appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and order No. A/94140/16/STB dated 2 December 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT"), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. ST/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
