9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has challenged the following demand - S. No. Description Service Tax demanded (Rs.)SCN dt.08-05-2014 SCN dated 08.10.2015 1 Receipt of Sinking Fund 1,60,980 1,17,035/- 2 Car Parking (Not Pressed) 77,868/- 3. Appellant have been engaged in business of developing residential complex and have been selling residential flats during construction. Service tax on sale of flats during construction had been levied w.e.f. 01-07-2010. A show cause notice dt. 14-10-2013 was issued for the period 01-07-2010 to 31-03-2012 for demanding Service Tax on above issues, by invoking extended period of limitation. Consequent to the earlier SCN dt.14-10-2013, SCN dated 08.05.2014 was issued for the period 2012-13 demanding service tax on sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so drew our attention to the ST-3 returns to contend that wherever they have collected amount towards maintenance and repair service, they had regularly been paying service tax. He also placed reliance on following decisions: - - Kumar Beheray Rathi Vs. CCE reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 139 (T). - P.V.S. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 277 (T). - KDP Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs CCE reported in 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 450 (T). 4.2 The learned Departmental Representative supports the view taken by Lower Authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records 6. We find that the issue regarding liability for payment of service tax on sinking fund/interest free maintenance scrutiny is no more res int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to service tax separately. We note that the said amount collected by the Appellant from the flat owners is towards the security for the purpose of maintenance of the building and to cover the eventual default made by any of the flat owners for payment of monthly maintenance charges. As per the agreement with the flat owners, the said amount is liable to be refunded to them within the period of Six months from the date of termination of the said agreement. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the genuineness of the said term is very much doubted inasmuch as the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the said IFMS was ever refunded to anyone. We really fail to understand the said reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. vide Final Order No.70329-70330/2024 dt. 07-06-2024. 6.2 In as much as the issue stands decided by various decisions, we find no reason to take a different view. Accordingly demand of Rs.2,78,015/- on the said count is set aside alongwith setting aside of penalty. 7.1 As we have set aside both the demands on merit, we also set aside the corresponding demand of interest and penalty. 7.2 The learned counsel for the Appellant had also submitted that part of the demand is barred by limitation. As we have set aside both the demands on merits, we refrain from dealing with the aspect of limitation. 8. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with consequential relief. ( Order pronounced in open co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
