TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... associated with said service tax providers against whom penalties have been imposed. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is same, they are taken together for decision. 2. The facts in all the cases are similar therefore, for the sake of convenience facts in Appeal No.ST/70756/2018 are being recorded and facts in the other appeals are also of similar nature. The appellants are provider of Residential Complex Service which was defined under the Finance Act, 1994 and w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the said definition of Individual Services does not exist on the statute and w.e.f. 01.07.2012 a new concept of negative list was introduced wherein whatever has not been included in the negative list, is treated as a service. The appellants were issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the basic principle of granting abatement. 10.2 "Construction of a Complex, Building etc" and "Preferential Location" are separate and different activities. Usually, all the houses/floors in a complex/building may not have preferential location. Therefore, the builder may not charge the PLC in respect of all the houses/floors. Thus, an inference may be drawn that "Construction of a Complex, Building etc." is an independent activity [service] in itself even without Preferential Location. 10.3 The builders of residential or commercial complexes provide other facilities and charge separately for them i.e. Internal or external development charges which are collected for developing/maintaining parks, laying of sewerage and water pipelin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided under Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and therefore, the components such as preferred location charges, external development charges etc. were contended to attract full rate of service tax on the full value and on such premises demands were raised in respect of M/s Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 3.68 crores approximately. In respect of other two appellants on similar contentions demands were raised to the extent of Rs. 2.49 crores and Rs. 3.85 crores approximately. On contest the above demands were confirmed through the impugned Orders-in-Original and through the impugned Orders-in-Original personal penalties were also imposed on the personnel associated with the service providers. Aggrieved by the said o....