9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n renting of immovable property service. The appellant does not dispute the fact in this respect. A show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 was issued to the appellant calling upon them to explain why service tax amounting to Rs. 3,22,191/- should not be recovered from them in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they are not disputing the service tax liability. In fact they had discharged the service tax liability on 23.04.2015 vide challan No. 05879. He draws the attention of the Bench to page Nos. 45 & 46 of the paper book in which a letter was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the service tax payable during 2013-14. He also draws the attention of the Bench to page Nos. 27 & 28 of the paper book to substantiate his claim that the amount of Rs. 7,79,734/-was paid on account of property tax only. Of this amount, some amount has been paid in cash and rest has been adjusted towards the excess payment made during the previous financial year on account of a decision to the waiver of interest during that period. In view of the above, he states that no service tax is payable on this amount. He draws the attention of the Bench of the order of the lower authority and submits that against the demand of Rs. 3,22,191/-, an amount of Rs. 2,25,815/- has already been paid by them towards the confirmed demand and appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty and interest paid by a challan on 23.04.2015, well before 30 days from the show cause notice. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the order of the lower authority was passed after the date on which the President has assented to Finance Bill 2015 i.e. 14.05.2015. He also prayed that the penalty imposed under section 77 by the lower authority also be waived under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, as applicable during the relevant period. 5. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 6. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The first issue to be decided is whether the service tax is payable on the amount of Rs. 3,27,478/- which the appellant has claimed as abatement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 76(1) and I do so. 7. I do not find sufficient reason to invoke Section 80 to set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to file service tax returns. Accordingly, the penalty under section 77(2) is upheld. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order as follows: (i) The demand of Service Tax is reduced to Rs. 2,25,815/- along with interest and the amounts already paid by them are appropriated towards the same. (ii) The penalty under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 is set aside. (iii) The penalty imposed under section 77(2) is upheld. 8. The appeal is disposed of as indicated herein above. (D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
