Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Jaipur-I on 17 October, 2014
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:17.10.2014
1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Service Tax Appeals Nos.1618/2011 and 2138 of 2012 CU[DB]
[(Arising out of order-in-appeal No.332(DKV)ST/JPR-I/2011 dated 29.07.2011in respect of Appeal No.1618/2011-CU(DB) and order-in-original no.23/2012/ST/JPR-II dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II)]
M/s. Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
M/s. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
CCE & ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Singhvi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Govind Krishna Dixit and Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DRs for the respondent. Coram:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Order No. 54070-54071 /dated:17.10.2014.
Per Archana Wadhwa: -
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is common.
2. The appellants are owners of hotel buildings, which are rented by them to M/s. Indian Hotels Company Ltd., who were running a hotel in the said building.
3. Revenue by entertaining a view that the appellant are under obligation to pay service tax under the category of renting of immovable property initiated proceedings against them, which resulted in passing of the present impugned orders. At this stage, we find that the issue is no more res integra and the Tribunal in the case of Jai Mahal Hotels Private Limited Vs. CCE 2014-TIOL-992-CESTAT-DEL has held that leasing/renting of immovable property for a hotel is expressly excluded from the ambit of the taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzz).
4. By following the said decision, we hold that the appellants were under no tax liability for payment of service tax on the said activity.
5. In addition to the above, in the case of M/s.Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd., there is another demand of Rs.56,364/-, which arises in respect of the renting of immovable property in respect of another premises. The appellant have discharged their tax liability on the said activity but by treating the entire consideration, as cum-tax. However, as the appellant have subsequently claimed tax from their customers, Revenue is of the view that cum-tax benefit would not be available to them.
6. The contention of the appellant is that though they received the tax amount from their customers, the same has not been paid by them as is clear from the ledger maintained by them. Such ledger can be produced before the Original Adjudicating Authority to substantiate their above plea. We accordingly remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to examine and verify the above ledger and their claim that the tax amount has not been given to them by their customers and to re-decide the issue accordingly. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Ckp.
Customs Stay/2593, 2628, 2648, 2811, 2812, 3103 & 55161 of 2013 in Appeals Nos.C/1952, 1973, 2004, 2146, 2147, 2381 & 55172 of 2013 Appellants Vs. CC, Amritsar Respondent Appearance:
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, DR for the respondent. Coram:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Per Archana Wadhwa:
Vide the impugned orders, the lower authorities have enhanced the value of the goods and have challenged the classification, resulting in confirmation of more demand of duty. We are informed by the Advocate that the goods are still with the Revenue and he does not undertake to redeem the same during the pendency of the appeal but prays that inasmuch as live bill of entry was involved, the appeal be listed out of turn basis.
2. As the goods are with the Revenue, the provisions of Rule 129E of the Central Excise Act are not applicable. Accordingly, the stay petition is disposed of as infructuous. As regards the appellants prayer, by appreciating the fact that the goods are still with the Department, we fix the appeal itself for final disposal on 20.11.2014.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1