9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was denied – Assesse had not produced the cost of construction as required under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Waiver of pre deposit – assesse failed to make out a prima facie case – 75lakhs were ordered to be submitted – stay granted partly. - ST/258 & 259/2012 - Misc. Order Nos. 40920-40921/2013 - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - Shri. P.K. Das, and Shri. Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commr. (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Das; Both the applications arise out of a common order and therefore both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The applicant has filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of tax of Rs.6,97,84,025/- (Rs.1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3,45,27,514/- is in respect of residential construction service rendered to the flat owners. He submits that they paid the tax on the basis of work s contract from 1.6.2007. It is contended that the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the work s contract and demanded the tax under the commercial and industrial construction service without allowing the abatement of 67%. He submits that even the 67% abatement is allowed they have paid the tax more than the amount demanded under works contract service. He further submits the in view of the Board s Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.1.2009, no service tax is payable in respect of residential flats constructed for individual customers as they are using it for personal use. 4.1. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opped the demand of tax of Rs.1,77,73,333/-. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. The demand of tax of on the land owners share of construction, it is seen from the adjudication order that the applicant had not furnished any evidence to establish any difference in specification / quality between the construction provided to the land owners and others. Therefore, prima facie, the Commissioner is justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices and confirmed the demand accordingly. We find some force in the submission of the learned counsel that they are eligible for benefit of 67% abatement even the work s contract benefit is denied. The applicant contended that the construction out of land owner shares it was handed over at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
