2011 (10) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Respondent: Mr Ganesh Haavanur, SDR Per: P G Chacko: This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of service tax and penalties determined by the Commissioner for the period, June 2007 to March 2009, in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 18.6.2009. The impugned demand of service tax is under the head "renting of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service tax on the so called "royalty" collected by the appellant from the second party during June 2007 to March 2009. He also imposed penalties on the assessee. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that renting of immovable property was not a taxable service under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 when the MoU was signed by the appellant and the other party. It is submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lel between "hire purchase contracts" involved in the Cited cases, and the MoU referred to in the instant case. Learned counsel has also pleaded time-bar against the impugned demand. 3. We have heard the learned SDR also, who has opposed the plea for waiver and stay on the strength of the findings contained in the Commissioner's order. He has particularly referred to sub-section 3 of Section 67....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the other party. These parameters appear to constitute "renting of immovable property service" rendered by the appellant to the other party during the period for which consideration was collected by the appellant. On merits, therefore, the appellant has no prima facie case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that nearly half of the demand is for the extended period and the same ....