TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. [2017 (5) TMI 1143 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where, relying in the case of Sarjan Realties Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 933 - CESTAT MUMBAI] it was held that the activities of purchase and sale of the land and the amount received by them, and the difference between purchase price and sale price cannot be held as commission and taxable under real estate agent services. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/51305/2014 - Final Order No. 51118/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the appellant Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed by Revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,56,780/- along with interest and penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994. When an appeal was filed against the order of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, set aside the demand and allowed the appeal. Revenue has filed the present appeal challenging the dropping of the Service Tax demand. The following main grounds were explained by learned DR: (i) The respondent has played an important role in the entire deal finalized between owners/vendors and the buyers/purchasers. The respondent‟s role was in the nature of developers of the bare land, making it marketable, making the land suitable for plotting and by obtaining NOCs from the different departments. Such servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-Ahmd)]. (d) CCE Service Tax vs Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. [2015 (317) ELT 408 (All.)] (e) NTPC Ltd vs CCE, Raipur [2017 (5) GSTL 412 (Tri.-Del.)] 3. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The dispute is with reference to the agreements entered into by the respondents. Vide the Development Agreement dated 13.06.2006, the respondent along with other parties acquired the Development Rights to a certain piece of land situated in Nashik. Subsequently, vide the Sale Deed dated 11.10.2006, the said land was sold by the original owners to M/s Great Fortune Investment and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Further, out of the consideration of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- against the said sale, a part amount of ₹ 85,50,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than one reason. 5.1 Firstly, we find that the first appellate authority in the impugned order has gone into four agreements/transactions entered into by respondent from time to time and after analyzing the said clauses in the agreement came to a conclusion that these are in respect of sale and purchase of land and TDR. The findings of the first appellate authority are in paragraph 8.3 which are relevant and are reproduced. 8.3 On mere reading of the contents of the four agreements mentioned in para 7 above, it is lucid that the transactions amount received from Pawar family by M/s Shriram Hi-Tech Steel Power Pvt Ltd, Shri Ambika Ispat (India) Pvt Ltd, Shree Banke Bihari Ispat Pvt Ltd and M/s Great Fortune Investment Infrastr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
