TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax from October 2006 onwards. But it was noticed by Revenue that the appellants were executing two residential complexes namely Manchester Grand and Manchester Albatross. Since Revenue was of the view that the appellants should have paid service tax in respect of activities carried out by them in respect of the said two projects proceedings were initiated for recovery of such tax by issuing show cause dated 17-8-2009. After due proceedings a demand of Rs. 1,48,17,194/- is confirmed against them along with interest and penalties for the period July 2006 to September 2009. Aggrieved by the order the Appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal along with a stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 lakhs in one P/Y? In a case where the builder, promoter or developer builds a residential complex, having more than 12 residential units, by engaging a contractor for construction of such residential complex, the contractor shall be liable to pay service tax on the gross amount charged for the construction services provided, to the builder/ promoter/developer under 'construction of complex' service falling under Section 65(105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. If no other person is engaged for construction work and the builder/promoter/developer undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the services of any other person, then in such cases in the absence of service provider and service recipient 6. The Counsel also argues....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax from them again amounts to double taxation of the same activity. 8. There are other issues raised by the appellants. They contend that there can be no levy of service tax under the entry Section 65(105)(zzzh) because a new entry has been introduced with effect from 1-6-2007 under section 65(105)(zzzza). They also say that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the department and extended period of time cannot be invoked. They also rely on the stay order granted by CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Mohitasham Complexes (P) Ltd v. CCE - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 551 (Tri.-Bang.). These issues were not argued at length because most of it has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of LCS Citymakers (P) Limited - 2012-TIOL-618-CESTAT-MAD. 9.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g tax does not extinguish taxability of the service provided by the appellant. 12. The Revenue also argues that the exclusion in Section 65(91a) will apply only in a case where the complex as a whole is for the residential purpose of the person getting it constructed. In this case the individual is getting his residential unit constructed but the individuals are not getting the residential complex constructed and therefore the exclusion will not apply. 13. Revenue also points out that the decision in the case of Mohitasham Complexes (P) Ltd. is at stay stage. From the order it cannot be found to be a case where UDS in land was first sold and then construction was undertaken whereas in this case UDS in land is first sold and then construct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce itself as it comes out from the facts of the case. 16. Now we examine the case of the project Manchester Albatross. In the case of Manchester Albatross project they submit that this is a joint venture for construction of 27 Golf Villas with common facilities. The Appellants submits that in this case they were only a developer for identifying land and prospective buyers for the villas. The construction work was done by a contractor who paid tax on their services. Since the tax demand involved is only Rs. 3,53,294/- in this case we do not find it necessary to examine the issues raised in this case in detail at his prima facie stage. 17. We note that the appellant has been paying tax on such projects up to a time and then stopped furnishi....