2026 (3) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t appearing for the Appellant would contend that Appellant was the owner of a building in Perungudi, Chennai which was let out to M/s.HCL Technologies Ltd. on a monthly rental basis, the service tax was paid under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' (RIPS); the said building was sold by the Appellant to M/s.Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd. (EFSL) and the ownership was thus changed w.e.f. 18.06.2012. The Appellant having already collected the monthly rental along with service tax for the month of June 2012 from the tenant the property rent along with service tax amount collected, for the period 18.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 was paid by the Appellant to the purchaser of the said property. The Appellant had also availed cenvat credit based on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....renting or sub-leasing when such property in question is used in the course or furtherance of business. He would thus contend that the activities undertook by the Appellant between 18.06.2012 and 30.06.2012 would fall under 'RIPS' notwithstanding the fact of transfer of ownership and that the Appellant continues to provide uninterrupted services to their tenants under the very same commercial arrangement. He would further submit that during the disputed period the Appellant itself was to be considered as a 'tenant' who sub-let the premises to M/s. HCL Technologies which would be covered under Section 65 (105) (zzzz) ibid and that the denial of cenvat credit would result in cascading of tax perhaps lead to double taxation of the very same se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Appellant that it had collected the rent in advance, as usual and hence, partial rent for the period 18.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 was paid to the purchaser along with service tax element also. Though there is nothing brought on record by the Appellant indicating the commercial arrangements as against its claim of sub-letting to M/s.HCL Technologies Ltd. is concerned except on invoices. A perusal of the said invoice which is placed on record indicates that the buyer who became the owner raised an invoice and the description 'Rent for Office at Sterling Technopolis' for the period 18.06.2012 to 30.06.2012. This clearly indicates the implied assertion of the new owner of the property that the property in question was rented out to the Appell....