Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Cosmic Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 9 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. ST/539/11-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. o4-05/ST/2011-12/C dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ===================================================== M/s Cosmic Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent Appearance: Shri Shailendra Jain, C.A. for Appellant Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM: HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 09.03.2016 Date of Decision: 09.03.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. o4-05/ST/2011-12/C dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the Service Tax liability on the appellant for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2010 for the services rendered under the category of Renting of Immovable Property under the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is undisputed that the appellant had rented their premises to various clients under lease agreement and collected Service Tax from them. We find that the issue of discharge of Service Tax liability on the amount of rent collected is no more res integra as due to retrospective amendment tax needs to be discharged for the material period in question and we uphold the same. We find that the appellant has contested the case on the ground that the Service Tax liability has been levied on value of rent received for the premises. As regards interest is not payable on Service Tax, we do not agree with the contention raised by the Chartered Accountant for the simple reason that the Service Tax liability was always leviable on the immovable property, hence non payment of tax attracts interest. Accordingly, we uphold the Service Tax liability and interest thereof.
4. The learned Counsel take us to the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. In our considered view the appellant having discharged the Service Tax liability and the interest thereof has to be extended the benefit of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. These provisions were specifically brought into statute in order to not to impose penalty on the service providers under the renting of immovable property during relevant period, accordingly appellant need not be vitiated with penalty.
5. In sum we uphold the Service Tax liability and interest thereof and set aside the penalties. The appeal is disposed of as indicated herein above.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) (C.J. Mathew) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Sp 3 APPEAL NO. ST/539/11-Mum