9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, no question of imposition of penalty at all arises. Time limitation - Held that:- SCN is apparently beyond the normal period of one year. There is the apparent acknowledgment on the part of the Adjudicating Authority about the decision of Delhi High Court as has been impressed upon by the appellant. In the given circumstances, the non-payment was actually due to the said prevalent confusion. There is nothing on record which may be considered as an evidence qua positive act of the appellant of having an intention to evade the duty for the said period - SCN definitely barred by time. The Adjudicating Authority below are held to have committed an error while confirming the demand of interest, ignoring the legislative intent under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 2012 to September 2012 has been paid well in time and Department itself has not levied any interest for the said period. Inclusion of the said period in the Show Cause Notice is alleged to be wrong. With respect to the period w.e.f. April 2009 to March 2012, it is submitted that there was the confusion prevalent regarding leviability of service tax on the renting of immovable property service tax due to the various court decisions. Specifically due to the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. others Vs. Union of India 2009(14) STR 433 vide which the levy of service tax on renting of renting of immovable property was struck down. Observing that renting in itself is not a service as it do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pondicherry Paper Ltd. 2014 (1) T.C.S. 51 High Court Madras to emphasise that interest is essentially compensatory and different from penalty and payment thereof is mandatory on every person who fails to deposit service tax or any part thereof within the period prescribed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record, I am of the opinion as follows:- In the impugned case, it is the demand of interest on the delayed payment of service tax in accordance of Section 75 was initially proposed and subsequently confirmed. The admitted facts apparent from the record including the Orders of both the Adjudicating Authorities below are: (i) That out of the entire disputed period as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment is beneficial in nature, retrospect effect can be given to the said amendment. Therefore, no question of imposition of penalty at all arises. 6. The appellant has otherwise challenged the Show Cause Notice on the ground of limitation more than on the ground of merits. In view of the above discussion and the facts on record as far as the period and date of Show Cause Notice is concerned, Show Cause Notice is apparently beyond the normal period of one year. There is the apparent acknowledgment on the part of the Adjudicating Authority about the decision of Delhi High Court as has been impressed upon by the appellant. In the given circumstances, the non-payment was actually due to the said prevalent confusion. There is nothing on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
