2018 (10) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t : Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER PER BENCH : Brief facts are that the appellants rented out their buildings, which were used for commercial purposes and for furtherance of business. Their activity was taxable to service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service. On verification of records, it was found that they have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r submitted that in 2011-12, the rent for the period prior to 01.06.2007 was received by the appellant. Though such amount received by appellant prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be subject to levy of service tax, only because the said amount was received by the appellant later in 2011, the Department has erroneously raised demand on these amounts also. She prayed to set aside the demand in regard to suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the period prior to 01.06.2007 was received by them later in 2011 and this has been included for raising the demand. Both these pleas require to be verified by the adjudicating authority. We therefore find that both these issues have to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 6. The Ld. Counsel has argued to set aside the penalties. We do take notice that during the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Union of India vs. Home Solution Retail India Ltd. - 2009 (15) S.T.R. J23 (S.C.) • Union of India vs. Home Solutions Retail Ltd. - 2010 (20) S.T.R. J140 (S.C.) Therefore, we find that being an interpretational issue, the levy of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid., cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 7. From the discussions made abov....