TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue conducted certain enquiry regarding non-payment of service tax by the appellant which resulted in the proceedings against the appellant for demand of service tax of Rs. 53,70,906/- for the period 2004-2005 to 2007- 2008. The appellants filed defence reply. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority confirmed a service tax liability of Rs. 26,42,152/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and further penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appellants contested the findings in the original order on various grounds. The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant argued on the following lines :- (a) the contract executed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to. (f) MPHB have collected service tax from the buyers of independent houses which were built by the appellant, and deposited the service tax in the Government account. The appellants submitted supporting evidence with details of payment by MPHB in this regard. 3. The proceedings were contested on the ground of limitation as well as un-sustainability of penalty on the appellant. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the original order. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The appellants have made forceful plea regarding the nature of contracts executed by them. It is their claim that all the contracts executed by them are to be correctly classifiable as works contracts liable to service tax, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is vague and does not satisfy the scope of tax entry. The independent residential buildings, sharing common road or water or drainage pipes or common park, by itself cannot make them residential complex. Such independent houses should be part of a single lay out sharing common facilities only among themselves and not as a part of general municipal facility available to all residents of the locality. This much is clear from the statutory definition that there should be an approved lay out with common facilities. Existence of common facilities available to all residents of the locality or existence of common facilities in an approved lay out which is already in existence, wherein additional independent houses were built will not be covered i....