9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of plots, under Rule 6(3) of Credit Rules - Wrong exemption under CICS due to invalid completion certificate - Service Tax due to difference in taxable value of renting service in ST-3 return - Late fee due to non-filing of ST-3 return. HELD THAT:- It is seen that both the issues now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant were not raised before the Commissioner. It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to examine these issues in the first instance. The matter would, therefore, have to be remitted to the Commissioner to examine these issues. Appeal disposed off. - Service Tax Appeal No. 53185 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50106/2023 - Dated:- 31-1-2023 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Rs.19,920/- along with interest, which has been appropriated. Demand of Rs.27,721/- dropped. 19,920 3. Service Tax on legal services under reverse charge 1,03,277 Paid Rs.12,273/- along with interest, which has been appropriated. Demand of Rs.91,004/- has been dropped. 12,273 4. Incorrect credit as invoices not in the name of service provider 93,610 Paid along with interest and appropriated 93,610 5. Excess abatement on mandap keeper service 23,077 Paid along with interest and appropriated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Confirmed Service Tax Demand=Rs.3,43,09,196/- Amount paid=Rs.12,99,416/- Amount dropped=Rs.8,59,526/- Amount disputed= Rs.3,30,09,780/- Confirmed credit amount=Rs.93,610/-, entire paid and appropriated. Amount dropped= Rs.3,10,58,645/- 3,44,02,806 4. It would be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid chart that what is assailed in this appeal is the demand of Rs.03,30,09,780/- under commercial or industrial construction service and the penalty involved. 5. The contention that is sought to be advanced by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant is that the demand could not have been confirmed under commercial for industrial construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing no. 50554 of 2021 filed for urging additional grounds was also allowed by order dated January 06, 2022, and the same is reproduced below: This application has been filed under rule 10 read with rule 41 under Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure), 1982 for granting permission to urge certain additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had received land from State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal ( SIDCUL ) under a 90 years lease and after constructing the mall on the said land, the applicant sub-leased the shops/units in the mall to various sub-leases and hence there was no intention on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional grounds separately urged, it is necessary bring on record the documents which could not be filed with the appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that to substantiate the facts that shops/units were sub-leased by the applicant to various sub-leases and that there were no intention to sell the same on behalf of the applicant it is necessary to bring on record various sub-leases executed between the applicant and the sub-leases. 4. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned Authorized Representative appearing of the Department has opposed this application and has submitted that the applicant should have brought on record these documents as they were in existence at that time when the appeal was filed. 5. In our opinion, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
