9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no documentary evidences were produced to show the actual property tax paid by the appellant for letting out the properties - Held that: - Since the onus entirely lies with the appellant to prove entitlement of its claim for the benefit provided under Notification dated 22.05.2007, we are of the view that demand confirmed by the original authority is not improper - considering the submission of the appellant that it can produce the documents before the original authority to show that property tax has been paid and the same should be entitled for abatement, the matter remanded to the original authority for verification of such documents - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/51361/2014-ST [DB] - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, after initiation of show cause proceedings, the matter was adjudicated against the appellant, wherein the adjudged demands were confirmed. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Legislature has recognized renting of immovable property as the service, leviable to Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Since such service is a taxable service recognized under the law for levy of service tax, the input service used/utilized by the appellant for such output service should be considered as input service as per the definition contained in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Service Tax paid thereon should be available as Cenvat Credit. Thus, she submits that Service Tax paid on the security ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act, 1994. For providing such taxable service, the appellant had availed the services of the security agency service. Since such service was in relation to providing the taxable output service, service tax paid on such service should be available as Cenvat credit to the appellant in terms of Rule (2) (l) of the Rules. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra Cricket Association vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2016 (41) S.T.R. 833 (Tri.- Mum.) has held that the Circular issued by the TRU is ambiguous and is not confirming to the definition of input service. Thus, we are of the view that the Circular relied on by the Department cannot be acted upon for deciding the issue differently. Therefore, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
