9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Services Private Limited, the Appellant-Assessee herein, had entered into agreements with various shop owners of the building situated at 10/3, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani (Elgin Road), Kolkata - 700 020 and rendered various services to them. The Appellant-Assessee has collected various charges towards rendering of the services. However, they have not paid service tax in respect of some of the charges collected by them. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the Appellant-Assessee demanding service tax under various categories. 2. The appellant-assessee has been collecting car parking charges from their customers every year, but had not paid Service Tax on the said amount collected. The Officers of the Revenue were of the view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued to the assessee inter alia demanding Service Tax under the above said categories. 4. The Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned Order-in-Original No. 74/Commr/ST/Kol/2012-13 dated 12.03.2013. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the following demands of Service Tax: (I) Demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.8,99,864/- on 'car parking fee' under the category 'renting of immovable property service' for the period of 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011. (II) Demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.42,03,908/- on 'reimbursement of electricity charges' under the category of 'management, maintenance and repair service' for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011. (III) Demand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notice dated 31.12.2008 was issued to the assessee. In this regard, they cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)] and submitted that when a Show Cause Notice has already been issued on the same issue, another Show Cause Notice cannot be issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. Hence, the assessee contends that the demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation. 5.1. Regarding the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.42,03,908/- on 'reimbursement of electricity charges' under the category of 'management, maintenance and repair service', the assessee submits that they had collected the electricity charges on actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee prayed that the demands confirmed in the impugned order are liable to be set aside. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6.1. Regarding the appeal filed by the Revenue, he submits that the ld. adjudicating authority failed to demand interest on the demand of Rs.42,03,908/- confirmed against reimbursement of electricity charges. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessee may be directed to pay interest on this demand confirmed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that Service Tax has been confirmed and demanded in the impugned order under various categories. 8.1. Regarding the demand of Service Tax on car parking charges/fee, we obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department. In terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)], when a Show Cause Notice has already been issued on the same issue, another Show Cause Notice cannot be issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. In view of the above, we hold that this demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also. 8.2. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.42,03,908/ on 'reimbursement of electricity charges', we observe that the assessee-appellant has collected electricity charges on actual consumption basis and paid the same to CESC Limited. Hence, there is no liability on the assessee-appellant to pay Service Tax on this am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of service. Further the Notification No.12/03 ST dated 20/6/2003exempt from service tax, any value of goods supplied by service provider to service recipient. Further we find that the Commissioner of Central Excise Pune. III vide Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2011 relied upon by the appellants dropped the proceedings which were initiated on the same ground in the case of M/s. Panchshil Tech Park Ltd. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the adjudication order held that electricity is goods and chargeable to Nil excise duty. The decision of the adjudicating authority is accepted by the Revenue as per the communication dated 26.9.2012 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III. The present appellants are also under the jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
