2015 (9) TMI 632 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Demand of service tax - Renting of immovable property - Penalty - Held that - entire amount of service tax has already been recovered by the Revenue Authorities - following the earlier decisions, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant in their entirety taking a view that appellants are eligible for the benefit of provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. As regards service tax and interest, the liability has been admitted and said to have been recovered. - Delay condoned conditionally.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, demand of service tax on renting of immovable property and sale of space, recovery of service tax by Revenue Authorities, liability of appellant, penalties imposed, benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994, deposit of service tax with interest, compliance with jurisdictional authorities.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay: The appellant sought condonation of a 280-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to correspondence between the State Govt, Municipality, and the Central Govt. The Tribunal noted that the appellant could have proceeded with the appeal without waiting for clarifications. However, considering equity and justice, the Tribunal decided to put the appellant to terms for condoning the delay.

2. Demand of Service Tax: The issue involved the demand of service tax concerning the renting of immovable property and sale of space. The appellant's counsel argued that the entire service tax amount had already been recovered by the Revenue Authorities. It was further stated that the appellant was willing to deposit the service tax with interest. As the full amount had been recovered, the counsel contended that there was no liability on the appellant.

3. Penalties Imposed: In line with previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant entirely. This decision was based on the view that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. Regarding the service tax and interest, the liability was acknowledged to have been recovered. Any outstanding balance was deemed payable, with the service tax authorities authorized to recover the same.

4. Compliance and Disposal: To address the delay, the appellant agreed to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and report compliance to the Jurisdictional Authorities. Failure to comply with this condition would result in the revival of the impugned orders in their entirety. Both appeals were disposed of based on these terms, with the operative portion of the order pronounced in open court.