9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under the maintenance or repair service? - Whether the architect service is liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the period 16.8.2002 to 31.1.2007? Held that:- The appellants were not required to pay any service tax for the construction services before 1.7.2010 and they were also not liable to pay any service tax on the deposits received for management, maintenance or repair services and they are not liable to pay any service tax on reverse charge mechanism basis for the services they have utilized from the overseas architects for the period prior to 18.4.2006 - the appellants are required to pay service tax of ₹ 3,52,102/- on this count for the period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007. Refund claim - unjust enric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /investigations, an sum of ₹ 42,32,331/-. The department has issued a show-cause notice dated 2.7.2007, which was confirmed by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.3/2011 dated 31.1.2011. At about the same time the appellants have filed a refund claim on the service tax they have paid during investigation. The department vide show-cause notice dated 26.6.2007 sought to reject the refund. The same show-cause notice was confirmed by Order-in-Original No.71/2007 dated 31.1.2011 and was confirmed by Order-in-Appeal No.156/2008 dated 30.3.2008. Aggrieved by both the orders, the appellants have filed these appeals. 2. The appellants have submitted that there are three issues involved in the present case. (i) Whether the construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before or during or after construction . A mere agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property and the title to the property continues to remain with the builder, no service was provided to the buyer. That the service if any would be in the nature of service rendered to the buyer to himself. 2.2 Regarding the chargeability of maintenance and repair service, the appellants contended that the amounts collected from the prospective buyers were only in the nature of deposit. It can be seen at page 226 of the paper-book that the deposit so collected were shown under liabilities in the Balance Sheet. They submitted that no service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they have submitted that they have not raised any invoices and the amounts have not been recovered from any customers. Therefore, there can be no case of unjust enrichment. The Chartered Accountant has also certified the facts. Therefore, the refund may be granted. 3. The Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings given by the Commissioner and submitted that it was clearly brought out by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority that it was the duty of the appellants to furnish all the documents covering the refund amount and it will not suffice if only sample copies are furnished especially in view of the fact that not only the eligibility to refund but also the question of taxability of the activity u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
