9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 and service tax has been demanded on that. Year IFMS Charges Rate of S. Tax S. Tax Payable 2010-11 Nil 10.3% Nil 2011-12 Rs.2112822/- 10.3% Rs.217621/- 2012-13 2013-14 Rs.6960900/- Rs. 1265328/- 12.36% 12.36% Rs.860368/- Rs.156395/- 2014-15 Rs.3820063/- 12.36% Rs.472160/- TOTAL Rs.14159113/- Rs.17,06,544/- Sr. No Period PLC Received Service tax paid (after abatement) Service tax Payable (without abatement) Differential Service tax Payable 1 2010-11 NIL NIL NIL NIL 2 April 2011 to Sep. 11 NIL NIL NIL NIL 3 Oct.-11 to March 2012 2,47,796/- 25,523/- 25,523/- NIL 4 April 2012 to June 12 18,40,750/- 2,27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the First Appellate Authority which upheld the Order-In-Original and rejected the appeal before him. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the issue in the present appeal regarding the IFMS is no more res-integra and has been decided consistently by the Tribunal. The Appellant is collecting charges from their customers under the category of IFMS. Revenue entertained a view that such charges collected by the Appellant from the owners of the flat, forms value of the services provided by them, and raised demand against them. 6. The issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the Appellant as IFMS. Revenue's contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sand Dunes Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI-1383-CESTAT-New Delhi, 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'. Prime/Preferential Location Charges (PLC) 8. It is submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the PLC collected by the Appellant from its customers for the period from July 2012 to March 2015, accounts for a separate service rendered by the Appellant and hence should be taxable at full rate of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be liable to service tax, then as per the aforementioned facts, the same is naturally bundled with the service of construction and as such the Appellant has rightly claimed abatement in lieu of the same under S.No. 12 of Notification No 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and has rightly deposited service tax on 25% value of the PLC charges collected. 12. That the Appellant has collected Preferential Location Charges from it's customers. PLC is nothing but an additional amount collected by the Appellant from the customers to provide them the unit as per their preferences. It is a price charged for customer's choice. As such the Appellant has not provided any separate individual or independent taxable service in lieu of PLC collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treatment for any purposes based on its description, the most specific description shall be preferred over a general description. Further, sub section 3 provides - the taxability of a bundled service shall be determined, if various elements of such service are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, it shall be treated as provision of the single service, which give such bundle its essential character. Section 66F shall prevail over any clarification etc. given by the CBEC/ TRU, prior to 01.07.2012. 15. From the facts on record and on perusal of the RUDs, we find that although the Appellant may have prepared a price list showing preferential location charges, car parking charges etc. separately, but it is evident from the buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
