9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification of the Returns filed by the Appellant and pursuant to search conducted in their premises on 29.07.2011, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dt.22.10.2011 was issued proposing to demand service tax as follows: i) Rs.2,12,03,687/- under the head 'Construction of Complex service' for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.05.2007 as per Annexure-IV to SCN. ii) Rs.8,16,39,119/- for the same service of CRCS with proposal to tax the same under Works Contract service (WCS) during the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011 as per Annexure-IV to SCN with proposal to adjust the amount of tax already deposited i.e., Rs.1,69,70,199/- for the same period. iii) Proposal to appropriate the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- paid during the investigation. iv) Rs.4,69,180/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Immovable Property service for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011 4,69,180 5. Proposed appropriation against (4) Above 3,21,680 6. Demand on Management, Maintenance or Repair service during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 33,333 7. Demand on Transport of goods by Road service during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 3,31,699 Total 10,36,77,018 2,52,91,879 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. So far the first demand is concerned, we find that construction of complex service is not taxable for the period prior to 01.07.2010 as clarified vide Board Circulars read with amendment in the definition of 'construction of complex service' - Sec 65(105)(zzzh) read with Sec 65( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the demand of Rs.8,16,39,119/- is concerned, in view of the aforementioned observations, we hold that no service tax is payable for the period up to 30.06.2010. So far the demand for the period 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 is concerned, the Appellant states that they dispute the reclassification of the same service under the head WCS. However, as per the Notification No. 29/2010 amending the earlier Notification No. 01/2006-ST, keeping in view the value of land also involved, which is being transferred, 75% abatement of the gross value has been prescribed. Accordingly, the Appellant is required to pay service tax on only 25% of the gross value, after abatement. As the effective rate of service tax was 10.3%, thus, 25% of the same works out to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said project was done by a group company, viz., M/s Prajay Properties Pvt Ltd (PPPL) of the Appellant company. In the initial stage of the project some customers has issued cheques in favour of the Appellant totalling Rs.45,42,320/- which was transferred as such to M/s PPPL. Whereas, Revenue has erroneously considered the amount of Rs.23,27,53,000/- in respect of the said project received by M/s PPPL as received by the Appellant company, which is wholly erroneous. Admittedly, the said project has been executed by M/s PPPL and they have accounted for in their Books of Accounts and also complied with service tax provisions. 13. Further, the Appellant has received in respect of completed projects (9 projects as mentioned above), Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Solutions Retail (India) Ltd and Others. Thereafter, the said tax was again levied with retrospective effect by re-enacting the provisions. When the amount actually received is considered as gross amount and no other amount is admittedly collected towards service tax, then the gross amount becomes cum-tax value as provided under Sec 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority has erred in not giving cum-tax benefit. If the gross amount is taken as cum-tax value and service tax is calculated on this basis, the amount already paid as tax, tallies. 15. Learned AR has not been able to dispute this contention. Accordingly, we allow this ground and set aside the demand in excess of Rs.3,21,680/-. 16. With reference to demand of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
