Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Mahima Real Estate Pvt. Ltd vs Cst, Jaipur on 6 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order: 6.10.2016
Appeal No. ST/729/2012 (DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32(AKJ)ST/JPR-I/2012 dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
M/s Mahima Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CST, Jaipur Respondent
Appearance :
Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate - for the Appellant Shri Ranjan Khanna, A.R. - for the Respondent CORAM: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 54746/2016 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the service tax stands confirmed against the appellant on the alleged service of renting of immovable property provided by them during the period October, 2008 to September, 2009.
2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they are not disputing the taxability but are assailing the impugned order on the point of limitation, inasmuch as the demand for most of the period would be beyond the normal period of limitation. By relying on the judgement of Tribunal in the cases of Sujala Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (40) STR 606 (Tri.-Bang.) and Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (31) STR 367 (Tri.-Del.), it stands contended that identical issue decided by the Tribunal in the said decisions and it was observed that since during the relevant period there was Honble High Court decision in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (14) STR 433 (Del.) which was neutralised by the retrospective amendment brought in the Finance Act, 2002 the longer period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue.
3. The ld. DR appearing for the Revenue accepts the applicability of the said decision of the Tribunal as regards limitation.
4. Inasmuch as admittedly a part of demand falls within the limitation period, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for requantifying the demand within the limitation period. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (V. Padmanabhan) Member (Technical) RM 1