2023 (1) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered trust carrying out various social and charitable services. Appellant has been giving its property for temporary rent to generate income to boost its charitable activities. The appellant was registered under Mandap keeper service and paying tax regularly. The appellant given the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view and confirmed the demand under BAS as well as under renting services income and imposed penalties. The appellant carried the matter in appeal and this Tribunal vide final Order dated 30.03.2012, remanded the matter. In remand proceedings, the Learned Commissioner has again confirmed the tax and imposed penalty under the impugned order. Being aggrieved from the said Order In Original appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was not extended benefit of cum tax. He further submits that entire demand is time barred, for the reason that the appellant had a bona fide belief that the receipt is not towards the BAS. He further submits that even if tax would have been paid the same was available to their contractor for availing the Cenvat credit. Therefore, it is a revenue neutral case, for this reason also the extended pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Alternatively, he submits that simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78 is not permissible. 3. Shri Rajesh K. Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Service Tax was demanded on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant. In view of this fact, we find that the suppression of fact and mala fide cannot be attributed against the appellant. Accordingly, the demand is hit by limitation as extended period could not have been invoked in the fact of the present case. 5. Therefore, we set aside the demand on the ground of limitation itself. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. Appeal is allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X