TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Order-in-Original No. 83/ST/CHD-II/2012 dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, whereby the demand of service tax of Rs.12,93,803/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 78, was confirmed for the period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical and all three appeals are arising out of a common impugned order, therefore, all three appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that all three appellants were joint owner of immovable property situated at 22, Bhupindra Road, Patiala, Punjab and were receiving rental income from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with interest under Section 75 and also imposed the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed present appeals before us. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that he does not contest the matter on merits but only confines to invocation of extended period which, according to him, is not sustainable in law. 4.1 He submits that the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation without establishing suppression on the part of the appellants with intent to evade payment of tax. He further submits that each of the elements provided for invoking the extended period of limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....velopment Authority and others vs. Steel Authority of India and others - [(2011) 4 SCC 450] is decided. 4.5 He further submits that the constitutional validity of the levy is yet to be decided finally which is a dispute of interpretation in nature and hence, invoking the extended period of limitation is not justified as held by the Tribunal in the case of Diocese Of Tanjore Society vs. CCE & CGST, Trichy - [(2024) 21 Centax 422 (Tri. Chennai)]. 4.6 He also submits that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of exemption contained under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 as the appellants have been wrongly considered as 'Association of Persons'. For this, he relies on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Authorized Representative relies on the following case-laws: * Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust vs. CCE, Meerut - 2018 (363) ELT 144 (Tri. Del.) * Aircell Digilink India Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2006 (3) STR 386 (Tri. Del.) * Bharti Cellular Ltd vs. CCE, Delhi - 2006 (3) STR 423 (Tri. Del.) * Bajaj Travels Ltd vs. CST - 2012 (25) STR 417 (Del.) 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that in the present case, the department had issued the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation. We further find that 'Renting of Immovable Property' was brought in the Finance Act with effect from 01.06.2007 by introducing Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 29.08.2007, at that time 'Renting of Immovable Property' was not taxable, therefore, suppression cannot be alleged against the appellants. 9. Further, we find that the identical issue has been considered by Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Diocese Of Tanjore Society (supra) wherein, after considering the entire history of 'Renting of Immovable Property' and various amendments brought from time to time, the Tribunal has held as under: "6. The appellant has stated that changes proposed by the Union Budget, 2010 in respect of enlargement of scope of Renting of Immovable Property Services' became a part of Finance Act, 2010 and is applicable from the date to be notified. The same was challenged by the assessees PAN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t sustainable, the demand for normal period would also be dropped. Relevant finding of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced herein below: "92. When a notice is issued in support of transactions spread over a period of time and it is found that the extended period of invocation has been invoked, the notice cannot be treated as within limitation for some of the same transaction, once it is found that the extended period of limitation is not invocable. This proposition find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Alcobex Metals reported in (2003) 4 SCC 630 = 2003 (153) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)." 12. Further, we also find that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Shya....