TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no clarity. - no reasons have been given as to why the appellants did not make any payment of service tax even after 1.7.2010 and made a payment of ₹ 20 lakhs when investigation was taken up. No detailed statement showing the actual liability, the amount paid, the amount received, claimed as abatement have been presented. - except for claim for abatement of 67% which may have some force, we are unable to come to any conclusion in favour of the assessee. The conclusion is that the appellant is liable to pay tax demanded. - stay granted partly. - Stay Application No. 26875/2013, Service Tax Appeal No. 26532 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2015 - G Raghuram, President And B S V Murthy, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce provided by the appellant is Works Contract . By issue of show-cause notice dated 10.11.2012 culminating the impugned order and confirming the demand for the amount mentioned above and imposing penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned counsel submits that there is no service tax liability on the residential flats before 1.7.2010 when the complex is built by the builder/developer itself and sold. He submits that after introduction of the Explanation and definition was amended, the flats sold to individual buyers on the basis of construction agreements became liable to tax. It was also his submission that the appellants stopped paying service tax because, the Board issued a clarification in 2009 clarifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand covers a period of 2006-07 to 2010-11. Year-wise calculation of the amount paid as service tax, amount of consideration received, etc. are not forthcoming. On the one hand, we have situation where the Commissioner has confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant has not paid service tax and on the other hand, there is a situation where the appellant has claimed that they were paying service tax but there was no clarity. 6. Unfortunately, on going through the records and making some enquires, we also find that there is a confusion. For example, learned counsel submitted that he had given details of the value of the materials to the Commissioner and it was around ₹ 16.05 crores. However only when we enquired, he s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards share of flats is shown and according to this, during the period of two years, the total amount received was only ₹ 40,23,400/-. There is a figure of more than ₹ 1.45 crores in the show cause notice as receipt, actually the amount shown as received by the appellant is ₹ 40,23,400/- and the material cost of more than ₹ 2.27 crores has been claimed as abatement by the appellants. This raised serious doubts about facts and figures presented before us. 8. Moreover, no reasons have been given as to why the appellants did not make any payment of service tax even after 1.7.2010 and made a payment of ₹ 20 lakhs when investigation was taken up. No detailed statement showing the actual liability, the amount pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
