TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this was not a case of mere cost sharing arrangement as pleaded and urged. Prima facie this was found to be a modus oparendi to circumvent and get over the Act. Thus, prima facie the Appellants’ case cannot be equated with K. Raheja [2013 (6) TMI 564 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and Jetlite (2010 (12) TMI 40 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) .There, prima facie, the distinct legal entities have either advised or assisted the concerned companies in disposing off or selling flats/immovable property. The condition of 50% deposit, therefore, does not appear to us to be completely unreasonable or arbitrary. The Tribunal has rather balanced the rights and equities. This is not a matter where we should decide any wider controversy or larger question. The Appeals have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd builders are rendering the services to the group companies. These are providing staff and other assistance so as to enable the group companies to dispose of the tenements/units which are constructed on the property developed by them. Thus, this is a promotional exercise enabling the group companies to dispose of the immovable properties. Such service does not fall within the purview of the definition of the term Business Auxiliary Service as defined in Section 65(90) of the Finance Act 1994. Mr. Sridharan submits that almost in identical circumstances and in the case of the Developer itself, namely, K. Raheja Real Estate, Services Pvt. Ltd. on 20-2-2013 the Tribunal s coordinate bench passed the order waiving the condition of pre-depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion fairly and in just manner. There is nothing arbitrary or capricious about its approach nor the order is vitiated in law as termed by Mr. Sridharan. On the contrary it is a case where the Tribunal found that three companies and eight group associate companies are functioning under the operative control of individuals. The first three companies, namely, Appellants have substantive establishments whereas other eight group companies though having distinct corporate persona have no infrastructure or establishment of their own. The three companies used to supply the entire manpower, accounts and administration support, extending support in areas of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties perused the orders impugned in these Appeals. Each of these orders are made on the stay application/application seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. The argument is that the activities indulged in cannot be said to be providing of any service. Once the essential and basic activity is of sale of immovable property, then, that is what they associate companies are indulging in. The Appellants are providing the services in the form of promotional staff and establishments. They are in furtherance of the business of sale of immovable properties. 6. That is how the Tribunal proceeded in the case of Jetlite India Limited (supra). In the case of K. Raheja Real Estat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in disposing off or selling flats/immovable property. It is in these circumstances and in the facts peculiar to this case the Tribunal found in Paragraphs 6 and 7 that the matter is not fit enough for grant of complete waiver and unconditional stay. The sum demanded in each of the case is ₹ 27,50.915/- in the first, ₹ 7,83,25,782/- in the second and ₹ 2,00,17,859/- in the third. The condition of 50% deposit, therefore, does not appear to us to be completely unreasonable or arbitrary. The Tribunal has rather balanced the rights and equities. This is not a matter where we should decide any wider controversy or larger question. The Appeals have been brought before us at an interlocutory stage. In these circumstances we would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes discrimination. This is an unfortunate approach. Every Bench hearing a matter on the facts and circumstances of each case should have the right to grant interim orders on such terms as it considers fit and proper and if it had granted interim order at one stage, it should have the right to vary or alter such interim orders. We venture to suggest, however, that a consensus should be developed in the matter of interim orders. 59. If we may venture to suggest, in fiscal matters specially in cases involving indirect taxes where normally taxes have been realised from the consumers but have not been paid over to the exchequer or where taxes are to be realised from consumers by the dealers or others who are parties before the Court, interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
