Appeal allowed despite non-compliance with stay order. Estate developer liable for service tax.

The appeal was initially rejected due to non-compliance with the stay order issued by Commissioner (A), but upon review, it was decided that the appeal could proceed without compliance. An estate developer providing construction services was found liable for service tax on work done under a joint development agreement. The Commissioner (A) directed a pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount, but the Tribunal allowed the appellant time to comply and present their case. The judgment provided guidance on compliance with stay orders, service tax liability, and pre-deposit amounts, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with stay order passed by Commissioner (A) leading to appeal rejection.
2. Service tax liability on an estate developer for construction services provided.
3. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit amount ordered by Commissioner (A).

Issue 1:
The judgment highlights that the appeal was initially rejected due to non-compliance with the stay order issued by the Commissioner (A). However, upon further review, it was determined that the appeal itself could be decided without the need for compliance with the stay order. Consequently, the appeal was taken up for final decision.

Issue 2:
The appellant, an estate developer engaged in property development, was registered for providing construction services. The appellant constructed a commercial complex named 'Mid Town' before the introduction of service tax on commercial and industrial construction. The terms of the joint development agreement outlined the sharing of the constructed area and land between the landowners and the appellant. The appellant provided services to the landowners of 'Mid Town' and received consideration for the construction work. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's actions constituted service provision to the landowners, and the argument of self-service was dismissed based on relevant case law.

Issue 3:
Regarding the pre-deposit amount ordered by the Commissioner (A), the judgment noted that the entire demand against the appellant was set at Rs. 37,60,244. Despite the lack of a prima facie case against the appellant, the Commissioner (A) directed the appellant to deposit the entire service tax amount. The Tribunal found this direction reasonable but granted the appellant an opportunity to comply with the deposit order within 10 weeks. Upon compliance, the Commissioner (A) was instructed to review the issue and make a decision based on merits, allowing the appellants a fair chance to present their case. The judgment also addressed the disposal of early hearing applications.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to compliance with stay orders, service tax liability on construction services, and the pre-deposit amount ordered by the Commissioner (A), providing detailed analysis and directions for further proceedings in the case.

---