9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner along with interest but set aside the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 The Finance Act but imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act on the appellant. 2. Records show that this appeal pertains to the year 2014 and it was listed on several dates. None appeared for the appellant but we do not deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter any further. 3. We have heard learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 4. The appellant was registered with the service tax department. During the course of scrutiny of its ST-3 returns, it was found that the appellant was not paying service tax on the gross amount of income received as "renting on immovable property". On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Supreme Court stayed recovery of arrears in that particular case. The appellant relied on the case laws of Retailers Association of India to assert that renting of immovable property service cannot be a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The case of the appellant is that since Retailers Association of India was granted stay of recovery of service tax, the same stay should apply to the appellant also because the facts are similar " 8. It is submitted in the appeal before us that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly upheld the demand of service tax on the renting of immovable property and the impugned order may be set aside. 9. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department reiterated the findings of the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill continue to be a valid levy. As a creation of the law, this Tribunal has to follow the law and cannot go beyond its four corners. Further, levy of service tax on renting of immovable property was upheld by five different High Courts as stated above. 14. In view of above, the levy of service tax on the renting of immovable property service by the appellant needs to be upheld. Consequently, the appropriate amount of interest has to be paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already set aside the penalty under section 78 in the impugned order but upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act. The impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference. 15. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
