2018 (8) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....angalore and the projects were known by the name of 'Adarsh Esplanade', 'Adarsh Palm Meadows', 'Adarsh Palm Retreat', 'Adarsh Vista' and 'Adarsh Rhythm'. The Department alleged that on the verification of the records of the appellants, it was seen that they were providing the services under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complexes' in terms of Section 65(30A) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also alleged that the services rendered by appellants also included maintenance of immovable property service and appellants are also liable to service tax on reverse charge mechanism for the services they have utilized from overseas architects. The appellants have paid during the course of enquiry/investigations, an sum of Rs. 42,32,331/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vs. CCE, Bhopal: 2014-TIOL-402-CESTAT-DEL., held that no tax is payable by builder/promoter prior to 1.7.2010; they have also relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of R.F. Properties and Trading Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur: 2013 (31) STR 578 (Tri.-Del.). They have submitted that in both the cases the Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra Chambers of Housing Industry vs. UOI: 2012 (25) STR 305 (Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court considered the issue whether the explanation was prospective or retrospective in operation and Rule that the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2010 brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of Section 66A only in 18.4.2006. They submitted that Bombay High Court has given a categorical judgment on this issue in the case of Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI: 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.), which was maintained in Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (17) STR J57. The show-cause notice at para 8 has clearly indicated that for the period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007 an amount of service tax of Rs. 3,52,102/- was payable by them. So they submit that service tax liability, if any, on the said service would be applicable only for a period 18.4.2006 to 31.1.2007 i.e., Rs. 3,52,102/-. The appellants submitted that the same may be appropriated from the refund due to them. In respect of refund, they have submitted that they have not raised any in....