9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance was due to the striking down of the levy duty by the High Court under the said head. The extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue - the penalties imposed are not sustainable and accordingly the penalties under Section 78 and 77 are set aside - appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL No. ST/70329/2017-ST[SM] - A/72285/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Dharmendra Srivastava (C.A.) for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02/ST/Appeal/KNP/2017 dated 04/01/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Kanpur. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 65. Further in the course of enquiry the appellant had deposited a total of ₹ 5,19,360/- as service tax for the period 2012 13 and 2013 14 and intimated to the Revenue on 16 th October, 2014. The appellant further deposited ₹ 4,32,792/- for the period 2010 11 and 2011 12. Accordingly the appellant was given a show cause as to why not service tax amounting to ₹ 11,29,603/- not paid as per calculation, in Para-10 of the SCN, be demanded and recovered and further the amount already deposited to ₹ 9,52,152/- be not appropriated and further penalty was proposed under Section 78, 77 and 76 of the Act. 4. The SCN was adjudicated on contest, confirming demand of ₹ 11,29,603/- and further appropriated ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct etc. made out against the appellant, the penalties are also not sustainable and fit to be set aside. 6. The Learned A.R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the taxation under the head renting of immovable property service under Sub-clause (zzzz) of clause (105) of Section 65 had been struck down sometime in the year 2009 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thereafter the tax under the said heading was again revalidated by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01/06/2007. Further, I find that there is no case of concealment made out by the Revenue, in the show cause notice, as the appellant had recorded the transaction in the books of accounts ordinarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
