TIOL-DDT 2147 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=17063"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2013.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2147</font><br>
12.07.2013<br>
Friday</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Remittance of service tax under Central Excise account head </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> Netizen writes in:</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">For the last two days, TIOL has been publishing the anomaly with regard to change of account heads while remitting service tax. The directions of the Board under Circular No. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=41&filename=notification/servicetax/2003/sercircir58.htm" target="_blank">58/07/2003-CX(ST)</a></strong> dated 20/05/2003 are not honoured in our case. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The situation is as follows: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We have remitted Service tax and interest on the same, amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs under Central <strong>Excise Major Head 0038</strong> instead of <strong>Service Tax Major Head 0044</strong>. The mistake was found out after the close of the Financial year and therefore, we requested the e-Pay & Accounts Officer, Chennai for necessary corrections, under advise from the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Pay& Accounts officer has informed back that the interchange between <strong>0038 -Union Excise Duties and 0044 - Service Tax</strong> cannot be done. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We took up the matter further with the Pay and Accounts Office, Mumbai, based on CBEC circular No, <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=41&filename=notification/servicetax/2003/sercircir58.htm" target="_blank">58/7/2003</a></strong> dated 20/5/2003, wherein the procedure for rectification is described.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Mumbai Pay & Accounts Office has advised us to take up the matter through the Commissioner of Service tax, which was also done. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of late, we are informed by the Jurisdictional Range officer that the issue was taken up with e-PAO, Chennai, by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the E-PAO had intimated that no corrections could be made by e-PAO as changes in the account code were to be done only within the same Major Head ie. <strong>Within 0038-UED or 0044-Service Tax</strong> and not between the two as per the existing accounting provisions. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The questions that whirl around us are: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Is this the law of the land? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Is it the intention of the CBEC circular?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Are we supposed to make another payment under the service tax head? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Whether interest has to be paid once again for the delay in payment till date? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Whether the amount already paid will be refunded, disregarding the time bar of one year for refund? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Is there any impact of Section78A of Finance Act, 1994 in this regard? </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is for sharing our concern with TIOL. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Will the Board clarify?</font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback rates changed for Articles of Silver jewellery</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>new rates of drawback for Articles of jewellery and parts thereof made of Silverare as under - </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">SCHEDULE </font></strong></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A </font></strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">B </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tariff Item </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Description of goods </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unit </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top" colspan="2"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback when CENVAT facility has not been availed </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top" colspan="2"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback when CENVAT facility has been availed </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"> </td>
<td valign="top"> </td>
<td valign="top"> </td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback Rate </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback cap per unit in Rs. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback Rate </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drawback cap per unit in Rs. </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">711302 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Articles of <br>
jewellery and <br>
parts thereof, <br>
made of silver </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kg </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rs. 1795.5 per kg of net silver content <br>
(.999 purity) in the jewellery </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"> </td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rs. 1795.5 per kg of net silver content <br>
(.999 purity) in the jewellery </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Earlier, it was Rs. 2590.80 per Kg of net Silver content (.999 purity) in the jewellery in both the columns 4 & 6. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably, this downgrade was long overdue as Silver Prices have come down drastically. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In respect of Gold jewellery, the drawback rates were increased almost a month ago by notification 64/2013-Cus(NT) dated 20/06/2013 and a change would be expected therein too. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2013/cnt13_071.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification 71/2013-Cus(NT) dated July, 10, 2013.</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ST - DG, ST is not proper authority for passing any order under Chapter V of FA, 1994 & orders passed by such authority are not appealable before CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> pursuance of the order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition no. 3169/2004, the Director General of Service Tax, Mumbai had <em>inter alia</em> passed the following order dated 13/12/2005 <strong>(<font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=227&filename=notification/servicetaxmisc/2006-TIOL-01-DGST.htm" target="_blank">2006-TIOL-01-DGST</a></font>)</strong> - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><font color="#FF0000">"</font><font color="#FF0000">…, I conclude that the aforesaid services rendered, under the IATA Cargo Agency Agreement by the members of the Association (The Air Cargo Agents), are covered within the scope of "Business Auxiliary Services" and the Air Cargo Agents are liable to pay service tax on the remuneration/consideration received by the agents for such activities, since 01.07.2003 under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. </font></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All such service providers must discharge the service tax liability forthwith. They shall also be liable to pay interest, if any, for their past liabilities under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994."</font></em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Against this order, the Association had filed an appeal ST/019/2006 before the CESTAT.</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Incidentally, the Bombay High Court vide order dated 27/02/2008 recalled its order passed in Writ Petition no. 3169/2004 and further vide order dated 25/02/2009 the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appeal filed before the CESTAT was heard recently. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench narrated the sequence of events and then observed - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><font color="#663399">"</font><font color="#663399">…Therefore, there is no order pending for consideration of this Tribunal in the impugned case. </font></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. In any case, Director General of Service Tax is not the proper authority for passing any order under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and the orders passed by such authority are not appealable before this Tribunal."</font></em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appeal was, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">We said this in 2006:</font></strong> While reporting the order of the <strong>DGST</strong> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MzE4Nw==" target="_blank">DDT 287 - 20 01 2006</a></strong> observed, "<em>This raises another issue. Obviously the agents will be aggrieved by the order of the DG, Service Tax and would like to go in appeal. Where will they go in appeal? The Tribunal or High Court? As per section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal to the Tribunal lies against an order of the Commissioner passed under Section 73, 83A or 84 or an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order passed by the DG does not fall under any of these categories. So the Tribunal is out.</em>" </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkwNDc=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1058-CESTAT-MUM</a></font></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appeal signed by Superintendent not valid - Dismissed - CESTAT LB </font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> interesting case had a long journey on a simple issue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner passed an order on 31.08.1998. The Board reviewed the order and directed the Commissioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The Commissioner by an authorisation letter dated 19.11.1999, directed the Superintendent (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I to apply to the Tribunal. Consequent on such authorization, the Superintendent preferred the appeal. The Superintendent is the signatory to the memorandum of appeal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By the order dt. 03.06.2005, a Division Bench of the Tribunal referred the issue for consideration by Larger Bench. The issue was whether the Commissioner (pursuant of an order of the Board directing an appeal to be filed to this Tribunal), could authorize any other officer to present the appeal. The Larger Bench by the decision dt 29.11.2005, answered the reference stating that the Commissioner on direction by CBE&C to file an appeal under Section 35E(1) of the Act read with Section 35E(4) of the Act cannot validly authorize the Superintendent (Appeals) to present an appeal to this Tribunal and that an appeal signed by Superintendent <a></a>would not be maintainable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aggrieved Revenue took the matter in appeal to the High Court, which by judgment already adverted to, ruled that provisions of Section 35E enjoin that the Commissioner should apply to the appellate Tribunal for determination of the points specified by the Board in its order and what is critical is to ascertain who was the applicant viz. signatory to the appeal; and that the issue whether which officer/individual/authority had physically presented the papers of the appeal to the Tribunal, is of no consequence. The High Court concluded the issue by ruling that if any other person, other than the Commissioner, who is directed by the Board, is the applicant (the appellant), application/appeal would not be maintainable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the appeal was signed by the Commissioner or the Superintendent. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Certainly this is not a complex issue of law, but a simple issue of factual determination. The Tribunal found that the appeal was signed by the Superintendent and not the Commissioner and therefore the appeal was dismissed. </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See<font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkwNTA=" target="_blank"> 2013-TIOL-1061-CESTAT-AHM-LB</a></font></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT LB Decisions </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WITH</strong> the new President joining, Larger Benches are being constituted to decide several issues referred. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Today we bring you two more decisions of the Larger Bench. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkwNDk=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1060-CESTAT-AHM-LB</a></font> </strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>:</strong> Issue referred for consideration to the Larger Bench is whether goods manufactured by 100% EOU and cleared to Domestic Tariff Area out of raw material/manufactured goods procured from another 100% EOU, are eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.8/97-CE, dt.01.03.1997, as amended from time to time. Issue is already decided in favour of the assesse by Supreme Court in <em>Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I Vs Favourite Industries -</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2012/2012-TIOL-30-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">(2012-TIOL-30-SC-CX)</font></a></strong>. Issue does not survive for decision by Larger Bench - reference rejected. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkwNDg=" target="_blank"><font size="1">2013-TIOL-1059-CESTAT-AHM-LB</font></a></strong>: Issue referred to Larger Bench does not arise on the facts of the appeal - Larger Bench declines to answer reference - matter sent back to Division Bench. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT Cartoon</strong> </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/Second_Choice.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="424" height="479" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"><strong><font color="#663399">Customs </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is Road Construction Corporation under control of State of Maharashtra or not? - As there are divergent views of Tribunal on same issue, matter referred to Larger Bench: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> matter is referred to the Hon'ble President to place before the Larger Bench of this tribunal the following issue:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether as per Condition No.40(a) of the Notification No.21/2002-Cus (sl.no.230) MMRDA is Road Construction Corporation under the control of the State of Maharashtra or not?” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether it is mandatory for Settlement Commission to record findings on 'full and true disclosure' of particulars of undisclosed income and 'manner' in which such income was derived by assessee - NO: Delhi HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether it is mandatory for the Settlement Commission to record its findings with regard to the issues of “full and true disclosure” of particulars of undisclosed income and “the manner” in which such income was derived by the assessee; Whether the Settlement Commission would not have the jurisdiction to pass any order u/s 245D(4) of the Act setting out the terms of settlement unless it records its satisfaction on these aspects and Whether the point of maintainability of an application u/s 245C(1) does not get foreclosed by virtue of the Settlement Commission passing an order u/s 245D(1) or Section 245D(2C) of the Act and such an issue could be examined by the Settlement Commission at the final hearing of the matter, that is, at the stage of passing an order u/s 245D(4) of the Act. And the final ruling goes against the Revenue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notional interest on security deposit taken for premises rented out on lease basis - whether to be considered as additional consideration for renting of immovable property for payment of ST - no evidence led by revenue to show that such security deposit has influenced rent received and it is only presumption - <em>prima facie</em> appellant has made case in favour - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant is a service provider engaged in various services including renting of immovable property of commercial construction undertaken by them. The appellant has been discharging service tax liability on the rent received from the lessees. The appellant has also taken security deposit from the lessees. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The department took a fancy to this "security deposit" and was of the view that notional interest on the security deposit is also a consideration for the renting of the immovable property and, therefore, service tax liability should be discharged on the notional interest @18% per annum on the security deposit collected by the appellant. Accordingly, a service tax demand of Rs.3,26,12,102/- was made on the appellant. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our Columns Monday for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Monday with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice weekend. </font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>