TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../S.T./Commissioner/2014 dated 06.06.2014 wherein the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,50,37,382/- (inclusive of cesses) has been confirmed against them, along with interest, and a penalty of Rs.1,50,37,382/- has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further penalties under Section 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the said Act have also been imposed on the appellant, besides levy of late fee under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed in the impugned order under the category of "renting of immovable property" service in respect of the following six different categories i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts were not received as 'rent' on a monthly basis. It is their submission that the said amounts have been received by them only as instalments of the lease amount from the said shops, which is not liable to Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property" service. 2.4. With regard to the demand of Rs.35,29,439/- demanded on the Licensing Fee from mobile towers during the period from 2007-08 (6/07 to 3/08) to 2009-10, pertaining to category (4) supra, the appellant submits that this amount is not collected as 'rent' and hence, cannot be held liable to Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property" service on this count. 2.5. With regard to the demand of Rs.3,17,141/- raised against the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoking the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed on them in the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hobbs Brewers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (45) S.T.R. 60 (Tripura)], wherein the demand has been confirmed on a similar issue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We observe that the demands have been confirmed in the impugned order under "renting of immovable property" service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65(90a) of the said Act. We observe that in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to evade payment of Service Tax, no penalty is imposable on this count. 6. Regarding the demand of Service Tax of Rs.56,90,044/- confirmed in respect of category (3) supra, we observe that the said demand has been raised on the amounts received by the appellant in connection with leasing of shops, which stands squarely covered under the definition of "renting of immovable property" service. For the sake of ready reference, the definition of "renting of immovable property" during the relevant period is reproduced below: - Section 65(90a)"renting of immovable property" includes renting, letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within the definition of 'renting of immovable property' service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. 7.1. In this regard, we have examined the decision relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue in the case of Hobbs Brewers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (45) S.T.R. 60 (Tripura)]. However, we find that the said case is related to lease of land for setting up of a manufacturing unit. In the present case what is being collected is a 'licensing fee' for granting permission and not a periodical rent, as alleged. Thus, the case-law relied upon by the Revenue is distinguishable on facts. 7.2. Hence, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order in this reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is set aside. 10. We also take note of the submission of the appellant that the demands have been raised only on the basis of the documents maintained and furnished by the appellant. It is observed that the appellant has not suppressed any information and had no intention to evade payment of Service Tax. Accordingly, we hold that the penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 78, 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 are not sustainable and hence the same are set aside. 10.1. However, we observe that there were delays in filing the Returns by the appellant and hence we do not interfere with the late fee imposed under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for failure to f....