9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax Department at Noida and started depositing the tax, as collected. Levy of service tax under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property" had been challenged by several assessee's before the Hon'ble High Court and finally Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Home Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs Union of India reported at 2009 (237) E.L.T. 209 (Del.) vide order dated 18.04.2009 struck down the chargeability of Service Tax on "Renting of Immovable Property" Service. Subsequent to this, the law was amended by substitution of Clause (zzzz) to Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act and substituted clause provided- to any person, by any other person in relation to renting of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the amount of Rs. 32,10,487/- already deposited. Further, there were proposal to charge interest of Rs. 6,12,883/- with appropriation of deposited amount and further proposal to impose penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. The said SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2013 by the Additional Commissioner. However, he pleased to confirm the demand and appropriate the same. Further, he confirmed the interest amounting to Rs. 6,12,883/- and he appropriated Rs. 5,47,904/- and further ordered to recover the remaining interest amount of Rs. 64,979/-, so far the proposed penalty was concerned the demand was dropped by the original authority. Under these facts and circumstances, the Additional Commissioner had observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India (supra) there was reasonable cause for not depositing tax and rightly held so by the Additional Commissioner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred by imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78. Further, it is not the case of revenue that appellant has collected the tax and not deposited the same. It is admitted fact that appellant has not collected the service tax and there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant. 5. Learned A.R. for revenue relied on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I am satisfied that there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant. Further, the appellant has deposited, on being pointed out, as early as 07.02.2011 amount of Rs. 32,10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
