M\/s. Charring Cross Hotels (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 561 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-10-2018
ST\/40558\/2014 – 42529\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri S. Kannappan, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER BENCH
\nThe appellant is aggrieved by the demand of service tax, interest and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S.Kannappan submitted that the appellant is not contestin<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ection 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reason that during the said period the issue whether renting of immovable property was subject to levy of service tax was under much confusion and there were litigations pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The issue is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. UTV News Ltd. reported in 2018 (13) GSTL 3 (SC) as well as Mineral Area Development Authority and Others Vs. SAIL – (2011) 4 SCC 450. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n , the appellant would be eligible for exemption of Rs. 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Charring Cross Hotels (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise SalemService Tax2018 (10) TMI 561 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 1-10-2018ST\/40558\/2014 – 42529\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri S. Kannappan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Charring Cross Hotels (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem”<\/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-14411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14411","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=14411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14411\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the submissions made by the appellant, it i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.2 The ld. counsel has prayed for waiver of penalties. On perusal of records, it is seen that the issue whether renting of immovable property is subject to levy of service tax was under litigation during the disputed period and there were litigations filed by the tenants pe<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n