TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the business of construction of residential complexes. They first sell undivided portion of the land to the prospective buyer of flats and thereafter construct flats for such prospective buyers. According to Revenue, during the period 16-06-05 to 31-03-09, they had executed two projects (i) Le Orchard and (ii) Majestic Orchard and they had not paid appropriate service tax in respect of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has recorded that he is not able to find out as to which period this payment relates to. But, we note that the fact of payment of such amount is not disputed. 3. Since the advocate makes a clear submission that this payment is towards liability for Majestic Orchard, it is only appropriate that it is so accepted at this stage for the purpose of allowing stay petition. 4. In the case of Le Orchard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orce only from 1.6.2007 and so on. 5. However, his main argument is that this demand is barred by limitation because SCN is dated 29-07-10. Therefore, he prays that no further pre-deposit may be called for from him for admission of the appeal. 6. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that the question whether payment was towards service tax liability involved in Majestic Orchard is a d....