9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1.6.2007. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of HOME SOLUTIONS RETAILS LTD VERSUS UOI AND ORS [ 2010 (5) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that renting per se cannot be regarded as service. Hence, no service tax could be levied on the activity of renting per se. Subsequently changes made by the Finance Act, 2010 in respect of enlargement of scope of Renting of Immovable Property Services' was challenged by the assessees PAN India and during the impugned period, the courts had taken a view that the amendment was unconstitutional and had even granted a stay in this regard. Further, the Apex Court vide its order in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS UTV NEWS LTD. [ 2018 (5) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT] , while examining a questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons and service tax was demanded from them collectively. The original authority vide Order in Original dated 29.4.2014 confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.13,67,139/- along with other adjudicatory liabilities. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of adjudication. The appellants preferred appeals before this Tribunal who vide Final Order No. 40224 to 40240/2019 dated 21.1.2019 while allowing the appeals remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the threshold limit of the individual co-owners as may be applicable during the relevant period of dispute. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority vide Order in Original dated 16.3.2021 proceeded to calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, this Tribunal vide the orders cited above has waived the penalty imposed on the renting of immovable property service by invoking the provisions of sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He prayed that the penalties may be waived in these appeals as the appellants have already discharged the service tax liability along with interest. 6. Ms. O.M. Reena, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that but for the detection by the officers, the same would not have come to light and the authorities have rightly invoked the extended period and the penalties may be confirmed. 7. I have heard the submissions made by both the sides. The impugned order is restricted to imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
