2018 (10) TMI 561 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Cum-tax benefit – case of appellant is that they had not collected the service tax and therefore they have to be given cum-tax benefit – abatement for property tax under N/N. 24/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007 – Held that:- It is brought out that the appellant had put forward cum-tax benefit and the same has not been considered by the authorities below stating that the appellant has not furnished evidence. The ld. counsel has submitted that though necessary documents / bills were produced before the adjudicating authority, the same was not considered. That the appellant is ready to furnish the necessary documents again if a chance is given to them – the issue whether the appellant is eligible for cum-tax benefit requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
–
Benefit of SSI exemption under N/N. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 – Held that:- This aspect also requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
–
It
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S.Kannappan submitted that the appellant is not contesting the liability to pay service tax under renting of immovable property service. The period involved is from1.6.2007 to 30.9.2011. He submitted that for the first year of the disputed period (1.6.2007 to 31.3.2008), the appellants would be eligible for exemption of ₹ 8 lakhs as per Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005. It is also submitted by him that the appellant had not collected the service tax and therefore they have to be given cum-tax benefit. Even though this plea was put before the authorities below, the same was not considered. Further, that the abatement for property tax under Notification No.24/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007 has not been given to the appellants. The ld. counsel pleaded that the penalties may be waived invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the rea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, the same was not considered. That the appellant is ready to furnish the necessary documents again if a chance is given to them. Taking these submissions into consideration, we are of the view that the issue whether the appellant is eligible for cum-tax benefit requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 5.1 The counsel has also pointed out that for the first year of the disputed period (1.6.2007 to 31.3.2008), the appellant would be eligible for exemption of ₹ 8 lakhs as per Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005. This aspect also requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Further, it is also seen from the records that the appellant has not been given the abatement for the property tax under Notification No.24/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007. The adjudicating authority shall also consider this plea of the appellant if sufficient proof is adduced by the appellant. 5.2 The ld. counsel has prayed for waiver of penalties. On perusal of rec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =