9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marily challenged the order to the extent it confirms the demand of Rs.3,30,09,780/- under "commercial or industrial construction" service defined under section 65(25) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act] and made taxable under section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act as also the imposition of penalty. 3. The appellant has drawn a chart in paragraph 7 of the synopsis to indicate the demand purposed in the show cause notice as also the status and the penalty imposed. It would be useful to reproduce the said chart to appreciate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is as follows: S.No Issues Demand purposed in show cause notice Status Penalty Imposed 1. Short payment of interest on late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-filing of ST-3 return Not quantified Paid late fee of Rs.20,000/- appropriated. - Total Confirmed Service Tax Demand=Rs.3,43,09,196/- Amount paid=Rs.12,99,416/- Amount dropped=Rs.8,59,526/- Amount disputed=Rs.3,30,09,780/- Confirmed credit amount=Rs.93,610/-, entire paid and appropriated. Amount dropped= Rs.3,10,58,645/- 3,44,02,806 4. It would be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid chart that what is assailed in this appeal is the demand of Rs.03,30,09,780/- under 'commercial or industrial construction' service and the penalty involved. 5. The contention that is sought to be advanced by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant is that the demand could not have been confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g additional grounds. 8. The application bearing no. 50554 of 2021 filed for urging additional grounds was also allowed by order dated January 06, 2022, and the same is reproduced below: " This application has been filed under rule 10 read with rule 41 under Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure), 1982 for granting permission to urge certain additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had received land from State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal ('SIDCUL') under a 90 years lease and after constructing the mall on the said land, the applicant sub-leased the shops/units in the mall to various sub-leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in order to support the additional grounds separately urged, it is necessary bring on record the documents which could not be filed with the appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that to substantiate the facts that shops/units were sub-leased by the applicant to various sub-leases and that there were no intention to sell the same on behalf of the applicant it is necessary to bring on record various sub-leases executed between the applicant and the sub-leases. 4. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned Authorized Representative appearing of the Department has opposed this application and has submitted that the applicant should have brought on record these documents as they were in existence at that time when the appeal was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
