TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant wins CENVAT credit for input services in commercial construction; interest-free security deposits not taxable</h1> <h3>M/s Vikhroli Corporate Park Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai</h3> M/s Vikhroli Corporate Park Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:- Availment of CENVAT credit for construction services- Taxability of interest-free security deposit- Tax liability on forfeited amounts- Improper availing of CENVAT creditAnalysis:Availment of CENVAT credit for construction services:The appellant constructed commercial premises for renting and availed various services with Service Tax liability discharged by the service provider. The revenue authorities challenged the appellant's CENVAT credit on input services for construction. The Tribunal cited the Oberoi Mall Limited case, establishing the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit for such services. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to claim CENVAT credit for input services related to building construction for commercial purposes.Taxability of interest-free security deposit:The revenue authorities contended that interest-free security deposits should be taxable based on notional interest. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that such deposits, as advance payments, do not attract taxation on notional interest. Referring to the Murli Realtors Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that interest-free security deposits are not subject to Service Tax liability.Tax liability on forfeited amounts:Regarding the forfeited amounts as liquidated damages for non-possession of premises, the Tribunal cited the United Breweries Ltd. case. Drawing parallels, the Tribunal concluded that Service Tax liability does not apply to amounts forfeited as liquidated damages. The Tribunal highlighted the intention behind the transactions and the nature of the forfeited amounts, aligning with the legal principles outlined in the United Breweries Ltd. judgment.Improper availing of CENVAT credit:The Tribunal remanded the issue of improperly availed CENVAT credit of approximately Rs. 3.30 crores for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Noting that the authority had not adequately considered the documents and findings, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough review following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the previous ruling on this matter for a fresh determination.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on specific points related to CENVAT credit, security deposits, and forfeited amounts, while remanding the issue of improper CENVAT credit availment for further assessment. The judgment provided clarity on the tax treatment of various transactions and upheld the appellant's position on several key issues.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
