9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the appellant under the category of "Real Estate Agent" services. The facts of the case are that the appellant is involved in the business of development of commercial/ residential building. In the course of their business they sell the developed property to various buyers. Some of the buyers may later transfer the right on the property to another person. For this they have to approach the builder/ appellant to change such name and details with reference to that property on payment of certain "Administrative Charges". The Revenue entertained a view that such "Administrative Charges" are liable to be taxed under the category of "Real Estate Agent" service. The appellant resisted the demand. The lower authorities confirmed such liability a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal held that there is a taxable activity under "Real Estate Agent" service. Drawing our attention to the statutory definition he submitted that any service in relation to "Real Estate" are covered for tax liability. In the present case, the change of name of title and other incidental activities are done by the appellant on receipt of consideration and this directly related to "Real Estate Agent" service and the appellant is liable to pay service tax. 4. We have heard both sides and perused appeal record. We note that similar dispute came up before the Tribunal on earlier occasions also including in the case of appellant's sister concern - Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi. The Tribunal vide Final Orders dated 27.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n between two principals. The third party comes when the buyer decides to transfer his right to that party and he is bound by the terms of original allotment to intimate the builder/ appellant for such change in the title. In this arrangement, we do not see activity which can be covered by the "Real Estate Agent" service. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. 6. S.T. Appeal No. 50791 of 2014 is against the order dated 08.11.2013 of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-I. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, noting the failure of the appellant to pay the ordered mandatory pre-deposit. As such, we note that in this appeal there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
