9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted on several occasions i.e. 19.1.2018, 13.2.2018, 16.3.2018, 26.4.2018 and today on 11.7.2018 and on all these occasions none appeared for the assessee-appellant. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee-appellant by an agreement dt. 10.1.2006 leased out their premises to one M/s. Travelline International for conducting hotel business during the relevant period from June 2007 to March 2011. During the said period they received rent at the rate of Rs. 5.50,000/- per month but failed to discharge total service tax of Rs. 31,66,217/payable against the amount of rent received during the said period. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to them on 17.4.2012 for recovery of the service tax with interest and proposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of appeal mentioned by assessee-appellant in their appeal memorandum. We find that limited issues to be determined are whether the appellant are required to discharge service tax on the amount of rent received for leasing out their premises to M/s. Travelline International for carrying out hotel business on the said premises and whether the penalty is imposable on the appellant for failure to discharge the same and the quantum of penalty. We find that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after interpretation of the scope of the definition of renting of immovable property prescribed under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, particularly Explanation-I and Clause (d) thereof, recorded a categorical finding that the building have been g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Finance Act, as pleaded by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal, but on a different set of reasoning recorded as follows: "In view of the foregoing discussion I hold that Appellants are not liable to penalty for non-payment of Service Tax till the date of amendment for the retrospective i.e. 1.06.2007 to 8.5.2010. However, after this period they would be liable to penalty for suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of duty as even after this amendment, the Appellant have not filed the returns or paid the Service Tax on their own. The Appellants have requested for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Act. However, I find that the Appellants have not been able to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
