Tribunal grants relief under Section 80(2) Finance Act, 1994, remands CENVAT credit issue for reevaluation.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for service tax liability as they correctly discharged the tax within the specified time frame, granting them benefits under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, the Tribunal remanded the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on various input services back to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's submissions and documents to ensure a fair assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property service
2. Denial of CENVAT credit on various input services

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property service
The appellant contested the demand of service tax and interest amounting to Rs. 20,116 on Renting of Immovable Property service. The appellant argued that they had paid the tax and interest on 17.09.2012, complying with the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claimed that the penalty should be set aside as the payment was made within the specified time frame. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the appellant correctly discharged the tax liability within the required time, making them eligible for the benefit under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

Issue 2: Denial of CENVAT credit on various input services
Regarding the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 6,88,215 on input services such as Telephone charges, Mobile Charges, Advertisement, Vehicle Servicing, and others, the appellant argued that they had not availed more credit than due from the invoices. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the submissions made by the appellant's counsel on the eligibility of availing CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found the submissions acceptable upon reviewing the documents provided, which indicated that payments were made from the head office as a receiver of services. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment, instructing them to consider the appellant's plea and documents, ensuring the correct perspective on availing CENVAT credit. The appellant was granted the liberty to produce additional documents if needed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty on service tax liability and remanded the issue of CENVAT credit back to the Adjudicating Authority for a reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice in reconsidering the matter.

---