TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise, Chandigarh-I 2017 (51) STR(Tri.-Chand.). Therefore, we allow the early hearing application and the appeal is taken up today for final disposal as consented by both sides. 2. The appellant is co-owner of the property No. 53 and 58 Chandigarh and rented the same alongwith co-owners. The appellant is receiving rent with the co-owners and the appellant share is deposited in their account separately. Revenue is of the view that the premises rented out is treated as one and therefore, on the rent received, the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Service". As the rent is more than Rs. 10,00,000/-, accordingly, they are not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect conclusion. The findings of first appellate authority is as under. "6.2 On mere reading of the Order-in-Original, it is evident that the adjudicating officer has considered above named four persons as one person for determining tax liability and imposition of penalties without telling any legal basis for doing so. The appellants have contested the Order in Original mainly on the grounds that rented property belongs to four separate persons (all brothers) but the service tax has been demanded wrongly by the department from the appellants by clubbing the rent received by all the co-owners and, therefore, the demand of tax is not maintainable on this ground alone. In support they have produced a City survey Extract as evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stributed equally among each of the appellant, it is evident that each of them received an amount lesser than Rs. 8 lakhs and 10 lakhs in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively which is below the exemption limit of eight lakhs and ten lakhs during the relevant period. The appellants were, therefore, not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received by them during these two years by virtue of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The appellant's case is also supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dinesh K. Patwa v. CST, Ahmedabed which is referred in para 3(ii) above. However, in the Financial Year 2009-10 and 2010-22, the receipt of rent by each appellant exceeded the statutory exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid service tax along with interest on their own. Thus, the claim of the appellant that they had paid service tax for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on their own initiative and there was no suppression of facts etc. on their part with any intention of evade service tax cannot be denied. Considering all these facts, I agree with the appellant's contention that this case was squarely covered under sub-section (3) of Section 73 which provided not to issue any notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73 if the service tax not levied or paid was paid along with interest by the person concerned before service of notice on him and informed the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing. Further in Explanation 2 of the said sub section it is ....