9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period 2004-05 to 2009-10 on the following services namely, a. Renting of immovable property b. Management, Maintenance and Repair c. Business Auxiliary Service and d. Inspection and Testing. 2. Two show cause notices for the periods 2004-05 and 2009-10 dated 21-04-10 and 08-04-11 were issued. The applicant had not given any cogent facts and figures or arguments as to how the demands raised in the show cause notices were not sustainable but only gave a reply that they are not aware of the rules. The adjudicating authority adjudicated the show cause notices confirming demands of Rs.4,61,75,255/- and 39,43,570/- respectively along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has filed appeals along with a stay pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of service tax on this item is not maintainable. 3.5 In the case of Business Auxiliary Service, he submits that service tax has been demanded on two activities viz. (a) supervision of the buildings and houses constructed for Tamil Nadu Govt on request of TN Govt. (b) processing of allotment applications received from various clients for houses constructed by them. The counsel submits that CBEC has already clarified that construction of building for the government to be occupied by government employees is not taxable. In the case of scrutiny charges, he submits that this activity is done to ensure that allottees satisfied the guidelines laid down by the government to be eligible to receive houses constructed by the applicant. They cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y records to show that the amounts charged related to only water supply or the amounts paid to Sewage Board in respect of water supply. Further in the case of Business Auxiliary Service, he argues that services are falling within the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. He submits that party should be put to reasonable terms of pre-deposit because otherwise there will be no effort to furnish proper reply and information for concluding the matter. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions on both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority was handicapped in deciding the issue because the appellant had not brought the facts and figures and arguments necessary for determining relevant issues. It is not advisable to encourage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
