9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of immovable property services for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2010 vide challan No. 50518 dated 28.12.13. On examination of the said VCES-I, the Department observed that the tax dues declared by the appellant were for the subsequent period on the same issue for which a show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011 for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010 had already been issued. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice No. 1216 dated 01.03.2016 was served upon the appellant. Proposing the recovery of the tax dues of Rs. 4,50,756/- alongwith interest and penalty. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 1 dated 18.05.2015. It is thereafter that the impugned Show Cause Notice no 1216 dated 01.03.2016 was issued proposing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was received only in January 2012 where after the appellant filed the VCES availing the benefits of the scheme. Question of any interest liability does not at all arises. The Order under challenge is alleged to be a non-speaking order in sheer ignorance of above submissions. Accordingly is prayed to be set aside. * except Section 77 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR has justified the Order. Para 6 thereof has been impressed upon and Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that prior to the impugned Show Cause Notice, another Show Cause Notice dated 25.02.2014 was served upon the appellant proposing the rejection of VCES application as was filed by him on 30.12.2013 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. However demand of the said amount is not sustainable, it being already deposited with the Department. 5. Now coming to the aspect of imposition of penalty, it is an apparently admitted fact that the Department has knowledge of non payment of the impugned demand since the year 2011. It is also being conceded by the Department that a confusion was prevalent during the impugned period qua the liability with respect to renting of immovable property services. The appellant received the service tax from his tenants for the impugned period only in January 2012. Appellants on their own had deposited the same in the VCES Scheme. Irrespective the said deposition has been rejected, the only consequence is that the appellants are not entitled fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
