CESTAT Chennai Orders Pre-deposit of Rs. 50 Lakhs Within 8 Weeks for Service Tax Dispute

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI ordered the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs within 8 weeks due to arguable issues and the need for further verification. The pre-deposit was required before the waiver of the balance dues resulting from the impugned order regarding liability for service tax on construction activities on two projects, despite the appellants' arguments and concerns raised.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax for construction activities on two projects.
2. Whether the appellants' argument of not providing construction services to individual buyers is valid.
3. Interpretation of Circular F. No. 332/35/2006-TRU and its applicability.
4. Double taxation issue raised by the appellants.
5. Applicability of Section 65(91a) exclusion to the case.
6. Whether the demand is time-barred.
7. Pre-deposit waiver for the appellants.

Issue 1:
The Revenue noticed that the appellants stopped paying service tax from October 2006 onwards while executing two residential complexes. A demand of Rs. 1,48,17,194/- was confirmed against them along with interest and penalties for the period July 2006 to September 2009.

Issue 2:
For the project Manchester Grand, the appellants argued that they did not provide construction services to individual buyers but only sold Undivided Share (UDS) in land and constructed flats. They relied on Circular F. No. 332/35/2006-TRU to support their contention. The Revenue argued that the construction activity took place on the land belonging to individual customers, not the appellants.

Issue 3:
The Circular clarified the levy of service tax on construction services. The appellants argued that if considered as providing services, it should be to individual flat owners falling under an exclusion in Section 65(91a). The Revenue highlighted that the Circular's clarification did not apply to the case at hand.

Issue 4:
The appellants raised concerns about double taxation, as the contractor had already paid taxes. The Revenue argued that the contractor's tax payment did not extinguish the appellants' tax liability.

Issue 5:
Regarding the applicability of Section 65(91a) exclusion, the Revenue contended that it applies only if the complex is for the residential purpose of the person getting it constructed, which was not the case here.

Issue 6:
The Revenue argued that the demand was not time-barred, as the appellants had stopped paying tax without informing the Department based on their interpretation of a Circular.

Issue 7:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs within 8 weeks, as there were arguable issues and facts that needed verification. The pre-deposit was required before the waiver of balance dues arising from the impugned order.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.

---