TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the show cause notice on counting the number of flats given to land owner, it would come to 30 flats. With regard to the contention of the appellant that the Bangalore Bench of Cestat has granted entire waiver of pre-deposit, we are not bound by the said decision in stay application, as it is not a precedent being an interim order and further, from the facts presented by the case in hand, it appears that the facts are not identical. The stay order does not call for any modification/rectification. The appellants are therefore, directed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit passed in the stay order dated 14-12-2015/12-04-2016 within a period of 4 weeks. - No relief to the assessee. - ST/22242/2014 - M/30042/2016 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel sought modification of the order by reducing the amount to be deposited based on this factual error. 4. The second contention raised by the appellant is that, in the case of Developers M/s Sobha Ltd Vs CCE ST LTU, Bangalore, Misc. order No.23375/2014, dated 02-12-2014 Cestat, Bangalore bench waived requirement of pre-deposit. That the Tribunal accepted the contention of the counsel for the appellant therein that no monetary consideration was agreed upon with the land owners and appellant as per the Joint Development Agreement and therefore consideration is not ascertainable. Once consideration is not ascertainable, valuation has to be done as per Section 67 r/w Service Tax( Determination of Valuation) Rules, 2006. The Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als under two categories of agreements, outright sale on the one hand and contract for construction of apartments on the other. Prima facie, it would appear that development of the property had been effected by construction of 42 apartments which were not handed over to the land owners as the consideration. It would, therefore, appear that the service had been rendered to the land owners for which the consideration was not monetary but in the form of apartments for disposal. It would appear that tax liability on the consideration has not been fully discharged . 7. From the above para, the contention of the petitioner/appellant that the Tribunal committed an error and observed that petitioner has handed over 42 flats to the land owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
