9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vable Property Service is not taxable and therefore he did not pay the service tax and the conduct of the appellant has been stated by Clause 75 of the Finance Bill 2010. Penalty not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/2679/2011-SM - 20802/2017 - Dated:- 24-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri S. R. Madhava Murthy, Consultant For the Appellant Shri Parasivamurthy N.K., For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal dated 27.12.2010 confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 3,33,382/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two only) along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner justifying the non-payment of service tax during the disputed period. But the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Mumbai) c) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Raja Forgings Gears Ltd. - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 404 (Tri.-Del.) d) Auro Textiles Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 35 (Tri.-Del.) e) Maruthi Suziki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi III - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C) 3.1. He further submitted that after the amendment made retrospectively, he paid the entire duty along with interest and his prayer is only with regard to the dropping of penalty. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the appellants have been paying the service tax on Renting of Immovable Property upto April 2009 and he stopped paying service tax on Renting of Imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
