2016 (3) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....operties and leased them out by collecting some amount as licence fee. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant during the period June 2007 to December 2011 has evaded the service tax liability on the amount collected as licence fee; it is the case of the Revenue that the amount collected as licence fee for hiring out the shops if falling under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property". The appellant during the proceedings discharged the entire service tax liability and also interest thereof. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax liability and interest thereof and appropriated the amount paid by the appellant and imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994. Appellant preferred an appeal b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 or otherwise. The undisputed facts are that the appellant are an autonomous Government body for administering of cantonment area in Ahmednagar; they are created as per the Cantonment Act, 1924. Section 67 of Cantonment Act, 1924, provides for charging of fees by the Board of movement of vehicles and advertisement, maintenance of property records etc. and also permits the Board to charge such fees, which the Board Regulation specifies. Learned Counsel submits that the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar had regulated that they will charge licence fee for commercial shop. It is also undisputed that the appellant had discharged the entire service tax liability and interest thereof during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... can be considered only as an omission on the part of the appellants and, therefore, there is no need to impose any penalty and invoke any extended period of time. A similar view was held in the case of other government bodies, in BEST Undertaking Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2007 (213) ELT 202. 4.4 Following the ratios of the above decision, in the present case also, we hold that the demand of Service Tax can be upheld only for the normal period of limitation and not for the extended period. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-compute the duty demand for the normal period of limitation and intimate the same to the appellants for payment. The appellant would also be liable to pay interest on the recomputed demand ....