9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 66F on the statute, the provisions of Section 66F will prevail over any clarification or view taken by CBEC. Benefit of abatement under N/N. 26/2012-ST. - Held that:- The components such as preferred location charges, external development charges etc. are part and parcel and for various elements of the main service which is Residential Complex Service and therefore the entire consideration received by the appellants are eligible for abatement under said N/N. 26/2012-ST. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos.ST/70752-70763/2018-CU[DB] - ST/A/72361-72372/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Abhinav Kalra, Chartered A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it appears that the assessee has claimed these charges separately from buyers as per specimen demand note and data provided by the assessee. Further, they are paying service tax @3.09% instead of full rate [which is12.36% at the intervening period i.e. July, 2012 to March, 2015. In this case, the amount charged on account of Preferential Location Services (PLC) etc, appears to be taxable at the full rate and not at abated rate of 25% because of following reasons: 10.1 While rendering Preferential Location Services i.e. Direction- pool facing, park facing, corner flat; Floor- first floor, top floor, Vastu- having the bed room in a particular direction; Number- lucky numbers, there is no transfer of material from the service provider to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax is payable at full rate in those cases where separate consideration is charged for the PLC, EDC, IDC etc. as per provisions of Section 67 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, revenue have relied on letter issued by CBEC on 26.02.2010 containing the instructors by CBEC to the filed formations on certain issues of valuation in respect of construction of commercial structures and residential complex. Revenue contended that the component such as preferred location charges, external development charges etc. stated above are not covered by the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the services rendered by the appellant to their clients were bifurcated into two components one as Reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial character. He argued that the charges collected by the appellant such as External Development Charges, Preferred Location Charges, Internal Development Charges, Legal Specification Charges etc. do not have independent existence and they are associated the provision of Residential Complex Service and therefore, essentially they are various element of the service which is predominant for Residential Complex Service and therefore they cannot be vivisected and cannot be treated as separate. He further submitted that the contract with the customer is for the complete amount and there is no separate contract with the client for base value and separate contract for other charges like External Development Charges, etc. He argued that therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
