9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench : Brief facts are that the appellants rented out their buildings, which were used for commercial purposes and for furtherance of business. Their activity was taxable to service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service. On verification of records, it was found that they have not discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2011-12, the rent for the period prior to 01.06.2007 was received by the appellant. Though such amount received by appellant prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be subject to levy of service tax, only because the said amount was received by the appellant later in 2011, the Department has erroneously raised demand on these amounts also. She prayed to set aside the demand in regard to such amount. 2.3 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2007 was received by them later in 2011 and this has been included for raising the demand. Both these pleas require to be verified by the adjudicating authority. We therefore find that both these issues have to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 6. The Ld. Counsel has argued to set aside the penalties. We do take notice that during the impugned period, the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.R. J23 (S.C.) * Union of India vs. Home Solutions Retail Ltd. - 2010 (20) S.T.R. J140 (S.C.) Therefore, we find that being an interpretational issue, the levy of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid., cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 7. From the discussions made above, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to look into the issue of abatemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
