2025 (10) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants have rented out their godowns to M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corporation for which the appellant was getting rent during the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2010, 01.04.2010 to 31.09.2010 & 01.10.2010 to 31.10.2011. As per the Department, the appellant has provided "Renting of Immovable Property Service" to M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corporation w.e.f. 01.06.2007 but has not paid the service tax on the said service. On these allegations, the appellant was issued three SCNs of different period for the same issue for recovering of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty as per the details given below: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovable Property. He further submits that though the service tax in relation to Renting of Immovable Property has been brought within the service net w.e.f. 01.06.2007 by introducing Section 65(105)(zzzz); the validity of the said levy were challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide judgment dated 18.04.2009 in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd. - 2009 (14) STR 433 (Del.), held that mere renting of immovable property by itself cannot be regarded as service and would not attract service tax. He further submits that retrospective amendments were introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2007 by Finance Act, 2010 vide which Renting of Immovable Property by itself became a taxable service neutralizing the judgme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period also cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Infinity Infotech Parks - 2014 (36) STR 37 (Cal.) decided on 30.04.2014. 7. As regards the penalty, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act whereby no penalty can be levied under Section 76 or Section 77 or Section 78 if the service tax along with interest is paid within 06 months of the date on which Finance Bill 2012 received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India i.e 28.05.2012. 8. Learned Counsel further submits that on plain reading of sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 it becomes clear that as regards service referred in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Further, we find that the Tribunal, in the case of M/s Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd.(supra), has held that when there were conflicting views and the assessee adopts a view favorable to him then it is considered as bona fide belief and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The Tribunal in the said decision has held as under: 8. Admittedly, there were conflicting decisions and different opinions, as regards the eligibility of the assessees to Notification No. 8/97-C.E. It was in view of the said conflicts that the matter was referred to Larger Bench. It is well settled that when two views are holding the field, the assessee adopting interpretation favourable to him can be said to be under a bona fid....