Appellant liable for service tax on construction services; abatement denied. Pre-deposit required. Financial hardships plea not considered.

The Tribunal found the activities undertaken by the appellant fell under 'Construction of Complex Services', making them liable for service tax. The plea for treating the gross value as cum-tax value was considered valid, but the abatement for cost of materials was denied. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within six weeks, with a waiver and stay of recovery on the remaining amount subject to compliance. The plea for financial hardships was not considered as part of the application, and the Tribunal thoroughly reviewed all aspects before issuing its directive.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appellant seeks waiver and stay of adjudged dues for service tax and education cess.
2. Classification of activities as 'Construction of Complex Services'.
3. Denial of abatement for cost of materials used in activities.
4. Treatment of taxable value as cum-tax value.
5. Plea for financial hardships not included in the application.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay regarding the demand of Rs.11,81,042/- for service tax and education cess for the period 2005-06 under 'Construction of Complex Services'. The Commissioner demanded this amount for finishing works on semi-finished residential flats sold by the appellant. The appellant argued that the cost of materials should be abated from the gross amount collected from flat owners for taxation purposes, a benefit denied by the revisionary authority. The appellant also requested the taxable value to be considered as cum-tax value, which was not granted by the Commissioner. The appellant's counsel presented a prima facie case on merits against the demand.

2. The Additional Commissioner opposed the appellant's plea for waiver and stay, reiterating the findings of the revisionary authority. The Tribunal found that the activities undertaken by the appellant, including flooring, painting, and commissioning of lifts on residential flats, fell under the definition of 'Construction of Complex Services', making the appellant liable for service tax. However, the plea for treating the gross value as cum-tax value was considered to be prima facie valid. The plea for abatement under certain notifications was also reviewed by the Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide sample copies of the agreements with flat owners, making it challenging to understand their activities. Despite this, the Tribunal determined that the appellant was liable to pay service tax for the activities undertaken. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance, with a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the remaining amount subject to due compliance. The plea for financial hardships was not included in the application, and the Tribunal considered all aspects before issuing its directive.

---