TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prefer to save the time of the Tribunal to hear other appeals. Under these circumstances we accept the offer to make the payment of service tax and interest on this service and allow the request for waiver of penalties by invoking provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this case, even though amount was received in 2005-06, the service became liable to tax from 2005-06 and being a new service, there is a possibility of confusion in the minds of assessees. demand of service tax with interest and penalty imposed in respect of residential complex service is set aside. The demand for service tax and interest in respect of commercial or industrial complex rendered for HSBC is upheld. The penalties imposed under all relevant statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of appeal which also in our opinion was not at all necessary since Hon ble High Court had already directed this Tribunal to hear the matter finally and decide the same on merits. Therefore the miscellaneous application filed for restoration of appeal is also considered as infructuous. 3. In this case, there is a total demand of service tax of ₹ 45,14,185/- with interest as applicable. Further penalty under Section 78 was also imposed. The period involved is 2005-06 to 2007-08. The show-cause notice was issued on 08/05/2009. 4. The learned counsel submitted that there was no liability on the appellants at all for payment of service tax in respect of residential complex service prior to 01/07/2010. He submits that the demand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to buyer. 5. The learned AR on the other hand relies upon the decision in the case of LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai [2013(30) STR 33 (Tri. Chennai)]. However, learned counsel relies upon the following decisions: i. CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Skynet Builders, Developers, Colonizer [2012(27) STR 388 (Tri. Del.)], ii. CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Green View Land Buildcon Ltd. [2013(29) STR 527 (Tri. Del.)], Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry Vs. UOI [2012(25) STR 305 (Bom.)], CCE, Chandigarh Vs. B. Construction (P) Ltd. [2013(32) STR 738 (Tri. Del.)], R.F. Properties Trading Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2013(31) STR 578 (Tri. Del.)], Magus Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2088-TIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the liability itself would not be arise. This has not been accepted on the ground that the appellant could not produce any proof that service had been rendered prior to 2005-06. It was submitted that it was for the Department to show that the service was rendered after 2005-06 and was liable to tax. However, in view of the fact that the amount involved is small, he would not like to contest the same and would prefer to save the time of the Tribunal to hear other appeals. We find the submissions correct. Under these circumstances we accept the offer to make the payment of service tax and interest on this service and allow the request for waiver of penalties by invoking provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this case, even thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
