M\/s. Kochar Properties P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 828 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 19-7-2018
ST\/Misc. 41660\/2017 and ST\/404 & 405\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42042-42043\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri V. S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nAfter hearing both sides, we find that the issue pertains to inclusibility of value of taxable services of interest accrued on security deposit paid in connection with renting of immovable property.
\n2. We find that the ld. <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n interest that would have accrued on such security deposit therefore cannot be made part of the value for taxable service. Hence those portions of the impugned orders which have decided to the contrary cannot be sustained and are set aside. So ordered. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Kochar Properties P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South CommissionerateService Tax2018 (9) TMI 828 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 19-7-2018ST\/Misc. 41660\/2017 and ST\/404 & 405\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42042-42043\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri V. S. Manoj, … Continue reading “M\/s. Kochar Properties P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13750"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13750\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. However, no interference is made with regard to the remaining service tax amounts that may have been demanded in these orders.
\n4. At the same time, we also find that all the disputes being only interpretational, there cannot be any penalty and hence the penalties imposed in the impugned order under the Finance Act, 1994 are set aside.
\n5. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent and the appeals partly allowed.
\n6. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of ca<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n