9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the flat owners. Service tax on the amount received by the applicant was paid in the year 2011. In these circumstances, we find that the applicants retained the amount in question received as deposit during 2006-08 till 2011 and earned interest on such amount - even after the Board's clarification in the year 2009 the applicants retained the amount and not returned the same to the flat own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if there is no liability the amount of security will be returned to the flat owners without any interest but ultimately the applicants paid the service tax to the Revenue on 08.03.2011. The Revenue has demanded interest on the amount of service tax which was paid after due date. 4. The contention of the applicants is that during the period in dispute 2006-08 the applicants are not liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period, the demand of interest is not sustainable. 5. The Revenue submitted that the applicants received certain amounts during the period in dispute from the flat owners and retained the amount till 2011 (till the time of deposit with the Revenue). The applicants have not returned the interest on the amount of deposit to the flat owners nor paid to the Revenue. In respect of the decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount received as deposit along with interest to the flat owners. In view of this the Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 73 A of the Finance Act are not attracted and set aside the demand of interest. In the present case we find that even after the Board's clarification in the year 2009 the applicants retained the amount and not returned the same to the flat owners. Therefore, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
