9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of rent. However, the appellant did not discharge service tax liability on the activity of renting of immovable property. It is also on record that the appellant had obtained service tax registration on 18/07/2007 under the category of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service'. However, apart from getting themselves registered, they did not follow the statutory procedures nor did they pay any service tax. Accordingly, investigation was carried out and a show cause notice dated 03/09/2012 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.68,84,748/- along with interest thereon and also proposing to impose penalties. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along with interest and an equivalent amount of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment itself introduced a retrospective amendment to validate the levy would itself indicate that there was confusion about the levy and, therefore, invocation of extended period of time demanding service tax is not correct in law. The appellant has already made a payment of Rs.31,51,247/- along with interest thereon of Rs.1,42,116/- as against a demand of Rs.68,84,748/- and the same should be considered sufficient for hearing of the appeal. Accordingly he pleads for grant of stay. In the alternative he submits that the appellant is willing to give solvent surety for the balance of dues adjudged against the appellant pending disposal of the appeal. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010) decided on 04/08/2011 upheld both the vires of the levy as also the retrospective amendment made in the law. Therefore, the vires of the levy is beyond dispute. As regards the argument of time-bare, the fact on record clearly establishes that the appellant did take registration as early as in July, 2007 whereas the Delhi High Court's decision, which is the basis for the appellant's confusion, came up only in 2009. We do not understand how a decision rendered in 2009 would lead to confusion in 2007. Therefore, it is clearly an afterthought adduced by the appellant. Therefore, we reject this claim. The appellant does not plead any financial hardship. In the absence of any financial hardship and in the absence of prima facie case on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
