9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual rental receipts and not collective one - Benefit of exemption vide notification no. 6/2005-ST was rightly extended - Decided in favor of assessee. - APPEAL No. ST/88801/13-Mum - Final Order No. A/2587/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 4-8-2015 - M. V. Ravindran, Member (J) And CJ Mathew, Member (T), JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. S.V. Nair Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri, Bharat Raichandani, Adv ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/179/NSK/2013 dated 13-06-2013. 2. The facts in brief, leading to the present appeal, are that the appellants are co-owners of the property located at Patel Plaza', Near Govinda Rickshaw Stop, M G Road, Jalgaon and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that extent and maintained that service tax liability has to be upheld for the year 2009-10 2010-11, but set aside various penalties and upheld the penalties under the provisions of Section 77(1) (a) and Section 77(2) of the of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent is not in appeal against such an order. 4. Learned Departmental Representative would draw our attention to the facts of the case and findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the respondent here-in had a premise which was rented out to various banks and an amount was collected as rent. It is his submission that in order to avail ineligible exemption, respondent informed the lower authorities that there was partition of the properties, which was inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by both sides and perused the records. The issue that needs to be decided in this case is whether the respondent and his brothers are to be treated as association of persons or other wise and service tax liability on it arises; should be confined (sic) without the benefit of the notification No. 6/2005-ST. 7. It is undisputed that the property which has been rented out by the respondent and his brothers is jointly owned property; Service Tax liability arises on such renting of property. 8. On deeper perusal of impugned order, we find that the first appellate authority has considered all the angles in the dispute and came to the correct conclusion. The findings of first appellate authority is as under. 6.2 On mere reading o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts and not collective one. From the various lease agreements made with above mentioned Commercial firms, it cannot be disputed that monthly rent was paid by the above named concerns to each appellant after deducting tax at their end. 6.3 From the Show cause notice dated 19.10.2012, it is evident that the appellants had received rent as detailed below:- Sr No Period Amount (Rs) 1 2007-08 (1/6/2007 to 31/3/2008) ₹ 29,21,048/- 2 2008-09 ₹ 36,27,024/- 3 2009-10 ₹ 46,72,744/- 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not arise. For the subsequent period i.e. 2009-10 2010-11, the appellants have already accepted their tax liability and paid Service tax along with interest on 14/2/2012. The said payment of service tax is certainly a delayed payment, but was made by the appellants on their own when they realized that their taxable value for renting of property had exceeded the exemption limit of ₹ 10 lakhs. The adjudicating authority has claimed in his order that the appellants paid service Tax only after Department started investigation, but it is not supported by any evidence or the facts on record. The SCN or the OIO do not talk of any audit objection or Preventive action or any Inspection etc on the basis of which not payment of service tax by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion arrived at is very correct, as co-owners of the property cannot be considered as liable for a service tax jointly or severly (sic) as Revenue has took (sic) identify the service provider and the service recipient for imposing service tax liability, which in this case, we find our individual (sic) . The conclusion arrived at by the first appellate authority is correct and he has confirmed the demand raised on the respondents by extending the benefit of notification no. 6/2005-ST. We do not find any reason to interfere in such a detailed order. 10. Since the respondents are not in appeal against the said impugned order against the imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 the order to that extent needs to be a (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
