9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the use of the godown of M/s. Excellent Packaging, which is also a registered assessee. Further, the admitted fact is that the appellant have duly accounted for all the receipts in the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course. The issue appears to be wholly interpretational in nature, as it appeared to the appellant that they have received lesser rent than the rent paid by them for the same godown and accordingly, they are not liable to pay service tax. CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- The denial of input cenvat credit for the rent paid by the appellant to M/s.Excellent Packaging is erroneous and against the provisions of law - the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for the rent paid by them to M/s. Excellent Packaging for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularly. In the course of audit during the year 2017 for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant have short paid service tax on the rent of godown received by them. Further, the admitted fact is that the appellant have also been providing Business Auxiliary Service/C F Service to few specific company clients and they have received, by way of reimbursement, amount towards the rent (for use of space in godown) from such companies, which have been duly accounted for in the books of accounts, admittedly, under the head Other Income . According to Audit, the amount of service tax is short paid on the rent of godown received by the appellant. The details of which are as follows:- Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wholly revenue neutral. Further, stated that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant, as they have declared all the transactions in the books of accounts maintained by them in the ordinary course of business. Further, the show cause notice has been issued based on the records maintained by the appellant and the details and explanations provided by them. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the contention of the appellant as regards the Revenue neutrality, that the input tax paid is more than the output tax payable. Accordingly, confirmed the proposed demand of Rs.1,57,050/- including cess with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and also interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have received lesser rent than the rent paid by them for the same godown and accordingly, they are not liable to pay service tax. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the denial of input cenvat credit for the rent paid by the appellant to M/s.Excellent Packaging is erroneous and against the provisions of law. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for the rent paid by them to M/s. Excellent Packaging for hiring of the godown as the same is input service for them. They have also received the rent from their clients by way of providing output service for the same premises, which is held to be taxable. 9. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, penalty under Section 78 is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. I rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
