9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SHRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA ENTERPRISES AND M/S. GREEN VALLEY DEVELOPERS AND KUMAR BEHERAY RATHI [ 2018 (2) TMI 1056 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. Interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- As both the demands are set aside on merits, the corresponding demand of interest and penalty also set aside. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- As both the demands are set aside on merits, it is refrained from dealing with the aspect of limitation. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER P. K. CHOUDHARY : The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Thane. The said decision was with reference to the specific provision of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The said decision is not applicable in the present case as the Appellant has not indicated any provision of UP Apartment Act, that mandated to collect funds on behalf of future RWA. It has been held that the said amounts collected were meant to provide maintenance or repair services. 4.1 The learned Chartered Accountant during the course of hearing submitted that Appellant collected an amount (approx. 1.2% of the cost of flat) towards Sinking Fund . The said amount is ultimately transferred to RWA/society and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es from their customers under the category of Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) and External Development Charges (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 11-7-2014 for the period July, 2010 to September, 2013, for the differential service tax amount of Rs.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE ST, Jaipur v. 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 v. CCE, Pune - 2013 (12) TMI-269-CESTAT Mumbai = 2014 (34) S.T.R. 139 (Tri.-Mum.). 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/OOO/APPL-MRT/10/2017-18, dated 19-4-2018. The decision in KDP Infrastructure, has also been followed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
