9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very well asked for the additional evidence which he failed to do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority is directed to re-verify the submission, documents and C.A. certificate provided or to be provided by the appellant and arrive at correct liability of service tax in respect of GTA service. Demand of Service tax - Management, Maintenance or Repair services of building collected from Flat owner - Held that:- the collection of such maintenance charges is under the statutory provision of MOFA, 1963. According to which it is mandatory on the part of the builder that before handing over the building to the society the builder that before handing over the building to the society the builder has to maintain the building for which the buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-, wherein Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 2,51,437/- under the category of Transport of Goods by Roads Service, service tax amount of ₹ 22,97,776/- under the category of Transport of Goods by Roads Service, service tax amount of ₹ 22,97,776/- under the category of Management, maintenance or Repair Service, demanded interest, imposed penalty of ₹ 25,49,213/- and appropriate the amount of 2,61,982/- against service tax and ₹ 50,125/- against interest which was already paid by the appellant before issuance of show cause notice. 2. The fact of the case is that department received an intelligence indicating evasion of service tax by Hiranand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions as provided under Maharashtra Ownership Flat (Regulations of the promotion of construction, sell management and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). As per statutory provisions under the said Act, builder is under obligation to maintain the building and the appellant only take re-imbursement of various services which was provided by various service provider. Therefore the appellant has neither provided the service nor retained the amount of maintenance with them. Therefore no service is involved and appellant is not liable for any service tax on so called Management, Maintenance or Repair service of the building. He submits that this issue has been settled in case of Kumar Beheray Rathi vs. C.Ex, Pune-3 [2014(34) STR 139 (Tri)]. In view of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate which certified the same. However in the impugned order the Adjudicating authority has brushed aside the submission of the appellant only on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced. We are unable to understand, once the appellant have claimed that certain amount of service tax has already been paid and C.A. also certified the same, if the Ld. Adjudicating authority is not satisfied, he could have very well asked for the additional evidence which he failed to do so. We therefore direct the Adjudicating authority to re-verify the submission, documents and C.A. certificate provided or to be provided by the appellant and arrive at correct liability of service tax in respect of GTA service. On this issue the matter is remanded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
