9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In view of the clarification dt. 27.04.2012 issued by CBEC that when this taxable service was introduced, there was a lot of confusion / litigation on its constitutional validity and the matter has not yet attained finality as the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India] - These circumstances constitute a reasonable cause on the part of the appellant for not paying service tax - Following decision of Euro Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2013 (5) TMI 538 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], penalty set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : ST/11717/2013-SM - ORDER No. A/11162/2014 - Dated:- 27-6-2014 - Mr. H.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 subject to verification by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that the service tax demanded and interest recoverable thereon has been paid by the appellants within six months from the date of enactment of the Finance Bill 2012 on 28.05.2012. On verification adjudicating authority found that the appellants had paid interest of ₹ 5,307/- on 27.06.2012 as per their own calculations against actual interest of ₹ 13,978/- recoverable from them under Section 75. The appellant also deposited the short-paid interest ₹ 8,671/- on 12.04.2013 i.e. after the expiry of six months from 28.05.2012. On the above facts the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uro Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot - [2013 (32) STR 642 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (b) That on being pointed out by the DGCEI, the appellant immediately deposited the service tax along with interest without contesting service tax liability. The appellant, being a statutory body, had no intent to evade payment of service tax, and consequently even a token penalty is not called for in the matter. He cited the following case laws: (i) BSNL Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore - [2008 (9) STR 499 (Tri. Bang.)]; and (ii) Surat Municipal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Surat - [2006 (4) STR 044 (Tri. Del.)] 4. On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Nair, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue argued that the impugned Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest thereon which has been appropriated in the order-in-original. I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the Service Tax liability on the renting of immovable property services. I find when this taxable service brought under statute, there was dispute and the matter has not yet reached finality as the appeal is pending before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Home Sales Retail India Ltd. I also find that the first appellate authority has recorded in impugned order as an issue involving question of interpretation of the provision of the law, I find that ld. counsel is right in contending that if this is a question of interpretation for setting aside penalties under Sections 76 77, the same reasoning would be applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
