TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement Ltd. are engaged in managing and maintaining properties of M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. The dispute in the present case relates to non-payment of service tax on certain consideration received by respondents/assessee. These mainly relate to amounts received as parking fee from the users of parking space in the property and amounts received as renovation charges from various occupants of the property as and when certain renovation are carried out by any of the occupants of the property. The Original Authority upheld the service tax liability on the respondent for the period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly set aside the order on the ground of time bar. He observed that in the absence of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the same cannot be sustained. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/ assessee stated that they have submitted all the required details before the original as well as appellate authority. The impugned order did not examine these documents and their defence before arriving at the conclusion on their tax liability. He submitted that, on merit, parking fee cannot be subjected to service tax. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mahesh Sunny Enterprises P. Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 21 (Del.). Regarding the renovation charges collected by the respondent/assessee from the occupants of the property, the learned Counsel submitted that these amounts are towards extra consumpt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act or the proviso thereunder it would tantamount to rewriting the statutory provision and no canon of interpretation permits such an exercise by any Court. If it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal. 17. The proviso cannot be read to mean that because there is knowledge the suppression which stands established disappears. Similarly the concept of reasonable period of limitation which is sought to be read into the provision by some of the orders of the Tribunal also cannot be permitted in law when the statute itself has provided for a fixed period of limitation. It is equally well settled that it is not open to the Court while reading a pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified". Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathania Fabrics vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) held that the limitation of five years period has to be reckoned backward from the date of show cause notice. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Tejas Networks India Ltd. vs. CCE (ST), Pondicherry reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.- Chennai) as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2015 (316) E.L.T. A157 (S.C.). 5. In view of the above legal position, we find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on time bar is not sustainable as the reasons cited is not legally tenable. Here, we note that the learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that they have a strong case to submit on the q....