2013 (9) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of final hearing - Relying upon LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai 2012 (6) TMI 363 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - There was some merit in the argument regarding land development - There was no merit in the argument regarding time bar because at no stage the Board clarified that if land was sold first and then construction is undertaken, there was no service tax liability - The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of 40 lakhs - Upon such deposit, the pre-deposit of balance of dues to be waived and stayed till pendency of appeal – Conditional Stay Granted. - ST/573/12 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri N. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri D. P. Naidu, ADC (AR) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ideration received in certain cases which has also resulted in excess confirmation of demand of Rs.13 lakhs out of the total tax demanded. Therefore, his prayer is that appeal should be heard without pre-deposit of any tax amount. 4. The counsel also raised an issue that there is a demand on land development charges recovered from the prospective buyers. It is his contention that land development is done even prior to the transfer of land to the prospective buyer and, therefore, at this stage, there is no service being rendered to anybody. He points out that the service tax amount involved in this activity is about Rs.27 lakhs. 5. The counsel also presses the argument that the circular issued by the Board in this matter was not very cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is clearly a service that has been provided to the person who has bought the undivided share of the land. He submits that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai reported at 2012-TIOL-618 -CESTAT-MAD. 8. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that these charges are recovered from the prospective buyer of the flat as land development charges at the time of sale. At what stage the activity is done and money is received is not clear from the adjudication order. 9. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The issue whether there is service tax liability in cases where undivided share of land is first sold are registered and thereafter construction is done is d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X