9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions for refund of the said amount in the agreement itself is there, it has to be considered that the said amount is refundable and was towards security deposits and was not for the purpose of providing any services, so as to levy tax on the same - reliance placed in the case of CCE ST, Jaipur vs. Sand Dunes Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 1383 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the security deposits collected by the Builder for providing maintenance to immovable property services would not be taxable under the category of Management Maintenance or Repairs Services - demand set aside. Special services provided by Builder - demand of service tax on External Development Charges‟ - Circular No.334/1/2010-TRU da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges (EDC). Revenue by entertaining a view that such charges collected by the appellant from that owners would form value of the services provided by them raised the demand against them by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 11/07/2014 for the period July, 2010 to September, 2013, for the differential service tax amount of ₹ 61,10,452/-. The same stands confirmed by the Lower Authorities alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. Hence the present appeal. 3. The two issues are required to be decided in the present appeal. The first issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the appellant as IFMS. Revenue‟s contention is that the said collected amount would fall under the category of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi, whereby while taking note of the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Beheray Rathi vs. CCE, Pune 2013 (12) TMI-269-CESTAT Mumbai. It was held that the security deposits collected by the Builder for providing maintenance to immovable property services would not be taxable under the category of Management Maintenance or Repairs Services . In fact, we note that Commissioner (Appeals) for the subsequent period in the appellant‟s own case has dropped the demand vide its Order-in-Appeal No. GZB/SVTAX/000/APPL-MRT/10/2017-18 dated 19/04/2018. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided, we find no reason to take a different view. Accordingly demand on the said count is set aside, alongwith setting aside of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f residents/owners as their members would not be taxable under this service. The appellant s contention is that the Ghaziabad Development Authority is also working under the state of U.P. and constituted under Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. As such, being a part of the State Government, the payment made to the Development Authority are required to be considered as having been made to State Governments. We find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. Admittedly Ghaziabad Development Authority has been constituted under Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and money collected by the appellant stands paid to them for obtaining the facilities. As such nothing stand collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
