9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.07.2012, a new concept of negative list was introduced wherein whatever has not been included in the negative list is treated as a service. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LOGIX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SHREE CHETAN SHARMA VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI SAWAN KUMAR MANAGER (TAXATION) , SHRI SAMEER SATIJA, DGM (ACCOUNTS) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE S.T., NOIDA [ 2018 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was 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 appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement), water supply and electricity, transportation and bus terminal, horticulture etc. on the net sector area outside the premises. Electric Substation Charges (ESSC) collected for the provision of electric substation and other related facilities in the residential complex. Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected for preferred location such as a specific floor. Transfer Charges (TC) charged to those customers that desire to obtain an already allotted flat which was relinquished by the original allottee. The Department issued a show cause notice [SCN] dated 26.07.2013 proposing to demand service tax on the above services (except TC) by disallowing abatement claimed by the Appellant under Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid by the customer in addition to the purchase of the flats, therefore, the same were subjected to service tax. It was further alleged that breakdown of the service tax demanded for the various charges are as follows:- S. No. Particulars Service Tax Demand 1. Transfer Charges 2,30,06,398 2. Preferential Location Charges 3,05,63,266 3. IDC 11,04,78,716 4. EDC 12,77,04,720 5. Electric Substation Charges 6,35,31,655 Total 36,52,84,755 The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2018 wherein the learned Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand proposed in the SCN. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Residential Complex Service and other as Special Services and they included preferred location charges etc. into special services and contended that special services being not the Residential Complex Service were not eligible for 75% abatement provided under Notification No.26/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 and therefore, the components such as preferred location charges, external development charges etc. were contended to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued that therefore, all the considerations received by the appellant were in the course of provision of single service which is predominantly Residential Complex Service and therefore appellants were eligible for abatement as provided under said Notification No. 26/2012-S.T. for the entire consideration received from their clients. 4 . Heard the Learned A.R. for revenue who has supported the impugned orders. 5 . Having considered the rival submissions from both the sides, we note that the C.B.E. C s letter issued by TRU dated 26-2-2010 about the scope of valuation in respect of Residential Complex Service which was introduced in the year 2010, during such period when there was no provision of Section 66F dealing with bundled service on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue is only in respect of interpretation of the provisions as contained in the statue. The issue with regards to the Constitutional Validity of the provisions was also taken up before various High Courts in the writs filed by various builder associations. In such situation where the issue was under consideration of various courts and tribunal invoking extended period for making this demand as per Section 73 (4) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be upheld. Reliance is placed on the decisions as follows: Suvikram Plastex Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 218 CESTAT Banglore] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited [2023 (4) TMI 216 - Delhi High Court] Essel Propack Ltd. [2015 (323) ELT 248 (SC)] ZYG Pharma Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (358) ELT 101 (MP)] Sanmar Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
