9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r - In the instant case, appellants have paid the service tax liability in the next month immediately after the preceding month. There cannot be any interest liability in respect of security deposit to the extent of ₹ 41,866/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/252/2011 - Final Order No. 41900 / 2018 - Dated:- 27-6-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.Saravanan, Consultant For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants herein were providing Mandap Keeper Service . On perusal of records pertaining to the period April 2005 to September 2007, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be worked out and after adjusting the advance amount paid by the customer towards Mandap, the balance amount will be collected from the customer. Only after settlement of the accounts, the security deposit will be refunded to them. vi) Whatever charges they had collected towards electricity, gas, furniture etc. they had paid service tax along with the other service tax dues for the month in which the amount was collected from the customers. 2. Department took the view that the service tax liability should have been discharged by the 5th of the succeeding month following the calendar month in which payments are received, which were done belatedly by the appellants. Vide a show cause notice dt. 4.8.2009, an amount of ₹ 9,30,674 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 were in force. The said rule was substituted by the Service Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2007 w.e.f. 12.09.2007. Prior to substitution the service tax was required to be paid only on the value of service attributable to the relevant month of quarter. In the instant case, appellants have paid the service tax liability in the next month immediately after the preceding month. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri R. Subramanian supports the impugned order. 5. We find that Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion that prior to 12.09.2007 Rule 6 of the Rules had incorporated the following Explanation : For the removal of doubt, it is hereby clarified that in case the value of taxable service is received before providing the said ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
