9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued to the appellants proposing to demand service tax on Maintenance and Repair Services, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Construction of Residential Complex Service. After due process of law, the demands were confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel, Shri S. Venkatachalam, submitted that the appellant is not contesting the demand in respect of Maintenance or Repair Services. In regard to the demand relating to Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, it is submitted that the building was constructed for the own use of the appellant and the building is used as office of the appellant herein. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f flats, the sale deed was executed for sale of flat along with undivided share of land to the buyers. The Department has demanded the service tax, alleging that the agreement to sell the UDS, which was prior to execution of sale deed, has transferred the right over the land to the prospective buyer and the land does not belong to the appellant and that, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. In fact, the land always remained in ownership/possession of the appellant till the construction of flat was completed and would amount to service to oneself and is not subject to levy of service tax, as clarified by the Board Circular No. 108/2/2009 and ST dt. 29.01.2009. He explained that in certain cases, the appellants have received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board Circulars will not assist the appellants. The demand has been rightly confirmed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellants have submitted that they are not contesting the demand in respect of maintenance and repair services. The said demand is, therefore, upheld. 6. In regard to demand in respect of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, it is submitted that the said building was constructed for the appellant's own use as an office. Therefore, the demand on such service cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 7. The period involved is from 10.09.2004 to 30.06.2008. The demand for the period prior to 01.06.2007 cannot sustain as per the decision laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of providing taxable service does not arise. In the present case, the appellant has not engaged any other person for construction and construction activity was carried out on his own. The land belonged to him as he had purchased the right/share of the land from M/s. Nelson Type Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Similar is the situation in the case of the Krishna Sarathy Residential Complex also. By the joint development agreement entered by the appellants with the land owners, part of the undivided share in the land was handed over to the appellants and, in turn, it was agreed to hand over certain portions of constructed area (flats) to land owner. The flats which are handed over to the land owners were for their own use as a consideration for the undivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
