TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration towards service will not prima facie amount to provision of any service on the part of the appellant - the appellant had a bona fide belief in non payment of Service Tax. The appellant also submitted that this case is falling under the principle of revenue neutrality in as much as the tax payment if any made by the appellant is available as the Cenvat credit to the contractor who has used the premises of the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The suppression of fact and mala fide cannot be attributed against the appellant. Accordingly, the demand is hit by limitation as extended period could not have been invoked in the fact of the present case. The demand is set aside on the ground of limitation it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under BAS as well as under renting services income and imposed penalties. The appellant carried the matter in appeal and this Tribunal vide final Order dated 30.03.2012, remanded the matter. In remand proceedings, the Learned Commissioner has again confirmed the tax and imposed penalty under the impugned order. Being aggrieved from the said Order In Original appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri S. J Vyas, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant received the amount not against providing any service but as a sharing of receipt of the contractor for using their premises for Mandap keeper services. On the receipt on sharing basis no Service Tax can be charged as the appellant is not the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable to the appellant. He submits that the penalty also not imposable as there is no mala fide on the part of the appellant. Alternatively, he submits that simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78 is not permissible. 3. Shri Rajesh K. Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Service Tax was demanded on the sharing of receipt from the total receipt of the contractor. The contractor provided the service of Mandap keeper to his client in the premises of the appellant. Therefore, out of the Mandap keeper service as per their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
