9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of ₹ 24,93,761/-, matter remanded to the Original Authority with direction re-examined the whole issue taking into consideration the documents that are available on record with a freedom to appellant to submit any such documents which they want to rely - matter remanded. Renting of Immovable Property - demand of service tax - extended period of limitation - Held that:- Since the matter was under litigation in respect of renting of immovable property, this matter is remanded to the Original Authority with direction to examine the issue after given an opportunity to the appellant to present their case. Appeal allowed in part - part matter on remand. - APPEAL No. ST/55645/2014-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO 72718/2018 - Dated:- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I vs. Sai Service Station Ltd. reported at 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tri.-Mumbai). We also note that learned Additional Commissioner has fairly agreed that the said final order of this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case. We find that through the said final order in the case of Sai Service Station Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal had held that demand raised on sale target incentives cannot be considered as Business Auxiliary Service. By relying on the said decision of this Tribunal we hold that in the present case the demand of ₹ 75,62,660/- does not sustain. We, therefore, set aside the said demand along with interest and equal penalty. 3. The second issue in the present appeal is related to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant further submitted that service tax was demanded under Business Auxiliary Service on amount of ₹ 99,69,575/- charged but not collected by appellant from M/s Tata Motors Ltd. as parking charges. He has submitted that before the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 came into force the levy was on the basis of receipt and since the amount was not received by them the said demand does not sustain. He has further submitted that appellant had received ₹ 6,11,642/- from M/s Tata Motors Ltd. for re-possession of hypothetical vehicles. His contention is that the said activity does not fall under Business Auxiliary Service. The learned AR has submitted that if the appellant is having documents and records for verification then the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
