9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi I. 2. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in providing various taxable service like commercial or industrial construction services, construction of complex services etc. and is registered with Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi. In connection with Commonwealth Games, 2010 held in Delhi, the applicant and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) entered into a Project Development Agreement on 14.9.2007. The agreement is for construction of residential facility for sportsman and officials participating in Commonwealth Games, 2010. The applicants were given exclusive development rights and have paid an amount of Rs.; 320 crores to DDA for the same. They have constructed 1168 flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that in the case of consideration is in the form of development rights, the value of service provided by the builder/developer to the land owner would be the value of development rights. In the present case, the applicant have paid an amount of Rs. 321 crores to DDA for such exclusive development right. Hence it cannot be said that the DDA paid for any services rendered by the applicant. 3) The Project Development agreement is based on public private partnership (PPP) model with mutuality of interest and with joint sharing of risks, efforts resources, and profit and loss. 4) It is not a case of land owner providing land for the developer for construction of residential flats and taking the portion of such construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be directed to pre-deposit the confirmed dues. However, the learned AR accepted that the quantification of value of such taxable service as adopted by the original authority may not be fully correct in terms of agreement read with provisions of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. When asked specifically about the possible correct quantification of the value, the learned AR submitted that it requires a re-verification and could not be arrived at offhand. Learned AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, Chennai [2013 (30) STR 33 (Tr-Chennai)] to contend that the applicant is liable to Service tax for providing construction of complex service to DDA. 6. We have heard both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/186/2007-CX IV dated 23.2.2009 that transaction between two contract parties on a principal to principalbasis cannot be treated as a service in a situation where the pre-determined revenue sharing basis has been agreed upon. As already noted the Development Project in the present case is apparently a joint development project with two main parties - applicant and DDA. The existence of service provider - service receiver relationship in the present arrangement requires to be examined in detail with reference to the terms of contract and other financial arrangements. In the present case, at prima facie stage, it is seen that it is a contentious issue to be gone through in detail at the time of regular hearing. 8. The Revenue's conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ines. There is no participation of land owner is the building activity. It was held that the Boards clarification has no application is such situation. The Tribunal concluded that there is a service provider - recipient relationship in the joint development agreement. 9. The appellants contested the demand on the question of time bar also. They pleaded that thee was lot of uncertainty and litigation with reference to construction of residential complex service and hence no suppression or fraud can be alleged against the appellant to invoke the extended period. The Revenue opposed the plea on the ground that appellant are an established organization undertaking huge project and the plea of time bar is taken to avoid the tax liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the valuation adopted in the impugned order being not in terms of the provision of Finance Act, 1994. 11. Considering the above discussion and analysis, we find that the whole issue of tax liability and exact quantification requires a close scrutiny and detailed examination at the time of deciding the appeal, the discussion as above leads to the conclusion that the appellant could not make out a case for full waiver of pre-deposit of adjudicated dues for admitting the appeal. No financial hardship has also been pleaded at the time of hearing. Hence, keeping in view the above factual and legal position, we find that it will be fit and proper to direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit Rs. 30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
