2013 (9) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the business of developing properties and constructing residential complex thereon which is a taxable activity under Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. During the period 2006-07 to 2008-09, they did not pay service tax on consideration received for such activity. After investigations, Revenue issued a show cause notice, demanding service tax on such consideration and after adjudi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccording to him, there is excess demand of about Rs.27 lakhs on account of such inappropriate calculation. He also submits that while considering the figures for three financial years involved, there has been double counting of the same consideration received in certain cases which has also resulted in excess confirmation of demand of Rs.13 lakhs out of the total tax demanded. Therefore, his praye .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he entire demand is time-barred. However, he submits that even if his contention of time bar is rejected and other contentions are kept in view the demand will get reduced to Rs.34,59,081/-. 6. Opposing the prayer, the learned Authorized Representative for Revenue submits that appellant was reluctant to place any information before the adjudicating authority and after summon procedure and corresp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch undivided share of land for construction of complex and, in such a situation, there is clearly a service that has been provided to the person who has bought the undivided share of the land. He submits that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai reported at 2012-TIOL-618 -CESTAT-MAD. 8. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, we do not see much merit in the argument regarding time bar because at no stage the Board clarified that if land is sold first and then construction is undertaken, there is no service tax liability. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the arguments as explained above, we consider it proper to direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X