TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal dated 29.03.2019 [Impugned order] passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is assailed by M/s Brijrani Hospitality Private Limited [Brijrani] and its Managing Director of Shri Aditya Tripathi [Tripathi] in these two appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, in the impugned order, upheld the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore in which service tax demand of Rs.1,06,31,026/- has been confirmed under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 [Act] and penalties of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 78 of the Act and Rs. 10,000/- under section 77 of the Act have been imposed on Brijrani and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was also imposed on Tripathi under section 78 A of the Act. 2. We have heard learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceive the rent of Rs.2,90,000/- per monthly for a period of five years. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the Brijrani demanding service tax of Rs.1,06,31,026/- under section 73 of the Act along with interest under section 75 and proposing to impose penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Act. 4. The Additional Commissioner confirmed these proposals which order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The details of the tax demanded are as follows: Sr No. Head of Demand/category Period/ Transaction Assessable value Service Tax Payable 1 Rent Accrued (M/s Shotz) April 2013 to August 2014 (16 Months @ Rs.4.50 Lakhs/months) 72,00,000/- 8,89,920/- 2 Demand via Legal notice Termination Claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), this submission was not considered. Further, for the month of August, 2014 the Shotz did not pay any rent as it vacated the premises on August, 2008 itself. Therefore, no consideration was received for this period. (iii) After the hotel was vacated by the Shotz, Brijrani entered into a monthly agreement for a rent of Rs.60,000/- only for Vishwa Mangal and paid service tax as applicable. Revenue has discovered an agreement with a rent of Rs.2,90,000/- which is not an enforceable agreement. (iv) In view of the above, the demand is not sustainable on merits. It is also partly time barred. (v) In view of the above, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation was correctly invoked in this case as the appellant had suppressed the actual lease agreements, filed false ST-3 returns, and created dummy agreements to undervalue services and further evaded summons which show that this was an active fraud by the appellant to evade duty. In view of the above, the impugned order is correct and proper which may be upheld and the appeals filed by the appellants may be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. 11. There are three contentious points of demand as follows: (a) Demand of Rs.84,63,192/- on an amount of Rs.5,83,66,845/- which Brijrani was supposed to receive from Shotz for premature cancellation of the agreement. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccrued to Brijrani from Shotz is concerned, learned counsel has two submissions-(i) for the month of August, 2014 since the premises were vacated on August 08 no rent was paid by Shotz. For the remaining 15 months, according to the learned counsel, service tax was paid after claiming the exemption limit of Rs.10,00,000/- available to small service providers. This submission deserves to be accepted, subject to verification. There is no evidence that rent was paid for August, 2014 and, therefore, service tax cannot be charged on the rent not paid. Further, if the appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption available to small service providers, it cannot be denied to the Brijrani. According to the learned counsel, after reckoning the exempti....