9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AI], where on similar issue benefit was extended - the demand of service tax is not sustainable as the appellants are entitled for benefit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 ibid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. ST/60199, 60207, 60201-60204/2016 - Final Order No. 60870-60875/2017 - Dated:- 8-5-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Poojan Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. R.K. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax has been confirmed under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Services . All the appeals are arising fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. After hearing both the sides, considering the fact that the issue has already been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nasik Vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel reported in 2015 (40) STR 1146 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. We have considered the submissions 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 vise and service tax liability on it arises, should be confined without the benefit of the notification No. 6/2005-S.T. 7. It is undisputed that the property which has been rented out by the respondent and his bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers individually paid their service tax liability along with interest on 14.02.2012. Thus, the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity has been worked out for the said period in OIO. 6.4 Since the appellants were individually liable to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notifiation 6/2005-S.T., dated 1.03.2005 during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 , no service tax was payable during the said period. Hence, the question of penalty under Section 76 for the said period does 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 14.02.2012. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section and interest thereon. Hence, in fact no SCN was required to be issued in this case for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty and even when it has been issued, no penalty under Section 76 or 78 is imposable in this case for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11. 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority, the conclusion arrived at is very correct, as co-owners of the property cannot be considered as liable for a Service Tax jointly or severally as Revenue has took identify the service provider and the service recipient for imposing service tax liability, which in this case, we find our individual. The conclusion arrived at by the first appellate authority is correct and he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
