9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alse. (ii) I confirm demand of Rs. 2,68,701/- against the notice under Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, which should be paid forthwith. (iii) I order recovery of interest from the notice on Rs. 2,68,701/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 2,68,701/- on the notice under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, this penalty would be reduced to 25% i.e.Rs.69,925/- if the reduced penalty is also paid along with Service Tax of Rs. 2,68,701/- so confirmed and applicable interest by the notice within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The dispute involved in the case is that due to difference of taxable value taken by the department and as claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim that the notice has received advance of Rs. 53,00,000/- after completion certificate dated 10.10.2012 is not correct and could not be substantiated at all." 1.1 It is evident from the findings of the Commissioner that they have not disputed the validity of the completion certificate received by the Appellant from the Office of Latur Muncipal Corporation dated 10.10.2012. The same is available on page No. 130 of the Appeal file. Further, the finding does not objects that all amount of Rs. 53,00,000/- has not been received towards the row house booking after the Completion Certificate dated 10.10.2012. The only objection is that as per the Balance sheet for the Year ended March 2013 the advances received by the Appellant is only Rs. 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... havan, all the consideration towards the row house has been received after 10.10.2012 and before 31.03.2013. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- + 13,00,000/- + 13,00,000/- + 10,00,000/- = 50,00,000/- is shown in the Flat sales receipts which is Rs. 1,36,00,000/- available on the page No. 84 of the Appeal file. Only the transaction shown in serial No. 5 and 6 with respect to Mr. Mahendra Bagul and Mr. Mukesh Chavan has been shown in the advances for row house booking available on page no. 85 of Appeal file. Therefore, 1,00,000/- + 2,00,000/- = 3,00,000/- is shown under the head advances for row house booking which is 27,08,000/- available on page no. 85 of Appeal file. 1.3 Further the payment made by each of the party can be verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid back to the them, hence it is not part of taxable value. In support of this claim, they submitted copies of ledgers showing datewise receipt and payment entries alongwith Bank name, Cheque number etc. From this ledger, I find that payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- was made on 31.01.2013 to their three clients (i.e. Balaram Jagid, Prashant Waghawre and Shivaji Shinde Rs. 7,00,000/- each) vide one cheque bearing No. 212258 to all three clients, Similarly Rs. 3,50,000/- paid to two client (i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rajendra Karpe and Rs. 2,00,000/- to Raju Agroya) on 29.10.2012 and 18.01.2013 vide one cheque bearing No. 212245. Payments to different clients through one cheque is not possible and also not permissible legally. Further, they have not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,050/- and the same has been debited from the Bank account of the Appellant as shown on the page no. 6 of the paper book. Further, we have also attached the banker's cheque prepared for each of the customer i.e. Mr. Balaram Jagid, Mr. Prashant Waghware and Mr. Shivaji Shinde of Rs. 7,00,000/- each, respectively available on page number 8, 9 and 10 of the paper book. 2.3 Further, the appellant returned the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Mr. Raju Agroya vide cheque number 212254 on 21.01.13 available on page 13 of paper book. The ledger account is available on page 11 of the paper book and page 12 of the paper book shows the receipt of advances on 13.07.2011 as Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2.4 Similarly, From Mr. Rajendra Karpe appellant has received Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable on page 274 of the appeal file, which specifically shows that the appellant has received the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 01.04.2010 which is prior to the levy of service tax on the "Residential Complex Service". 3.3 Therefore, the demand with respect to the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to be set aside. 4. The Commissioner in their order further observed with respect to the taxability of amount received towards unsecured loans under Para 11.04 of the order in original. The Para 11.04 of order in original reads as under, "The noticee has claimed that unsecured loans of Rs. 15,00,000/- was taken from friends and relatives for completing the project in time and the same were wrongly booked under the head "Row House Advance booking" inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
