9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of litigation before this Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in "Renting of Immovable Property Service". Show Cause Notice was issued to them treating them as 'association of persons' and service tax was demanded from them collectively. The original authority vide Order in Original dated 29.4.2014 confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.13,67,139/- along with other adjudicatory liabilities. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of adjudication. The appellants preferred appeals before this Tribunal who vide Final Order No. 40224 to 40240/2019 dated 21.1.2019 while allowing the appeals remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the threshold limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of R.K. Refreshment & Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2018 (14) GSTL 281 (Tri. Del.) and Aviacon (India) Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2017 (7) GSTL 356 (Tri. Del.) to contend that in similar circumstances, this Tribunal vide the orders cited above has waived the penalty imposed on the renting of immovable property service by invoking the provisions of sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He prayed that the penalties may be waived in these appeals as the appellants have already discharged the service tax liability along with interest. 6. Ms. O.M. Reena, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that but for the detection by the officers, the same would not have come to light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Authority of India and others ((2011) 4 SCC 450) is decided. In a case where the constitutional validity of the levy is yet to be decided the dispute is interpretational in nature. Hence reasonable cause has been made out for delayed payment of duty. In fact, due to legal complexities, the appellants are in the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. I, therefore, agree with the appellant that invocation of penalty in such a situation is not justified as per section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to the reasonable cause shown. 8. Thus, the part of the impugned orders i.e. Order-in-Appeal No. 36 to 38 of 2022 dated 22.4.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore relating to penalties alone are set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
