TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with interest as also imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. (ii) SCN No.597/2009 dt. 23.10.2009, for the period 2008-09, proposing total demand of Rs,5,91,38,314/- as per the four annexures to the SCN along with interest as also imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. (iii) In adjudication of both the SCNs, the Commissioner vide a common Order-in-Original No.53 & 54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 confirmed the aforesaid demands along with interest and imposed penalty Section 78 in respect of SCN dt. 24.06.2009 and penalty under Section 76 in respect of SCN dt. 23.10.2009. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 ibid. Hence Appeals ST/258/2012 & ST/259/2012. 2.2 When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan submitted that most of the demands confirmed in the aforesaid impugned order to these appeals now stands covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) and of the Tribunal decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE - 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT. 2.3 Ld. Advocate's contentions in respect of the item wise / annexure wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Date Period of Demand Details of Demand Amount confirmed in the order Rs. i. 597/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 2008-09 Demand under CICS 59,08,138 ii. -do- -do- Demand under CCS 1,06,22,800 iii. -do- -do- Demand under CICS 7,39,011 iv. -do- -do- Demand under CCS 3,45,27,514 v. -do- -do- Alleged adjustment of excess service tax paid, which is not permissible. 61,04,851 Total 5,79,02,314/- He submits that aforesaid demands raised vide Sl.No. (i) to (v) under the category of CICS / CCS are for the period pre-1.6.2007 and post-1.6.2007, hence the issue stands squarely covered by Apex Court decision in L & T Ltd. (supra) and this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He prays that following the ratio already laid down in these decisions, Appeal ST/259/2012 may be allowed. 2.5 So also in Appeal ST/40901/2014, the details of SCN, period of dispute, disputed amounts etc. as furnished by Ld. Advocate are tabulated as under : S.NO. SCN NO & DATE PERIOD DETAILS OF DEMAND OIO AMOUNT CONFIRMED 1 124/2013 Dt. 20.04.2013 April 2009 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2011 to March 2012 Annexure XI - Non payment of ST under WCS, RIPS and MMRS Rs. 11,57,491 Rs. 21,14,01,543 2.6 Ld. counsel submits that demands mentioned in Sl.No.1 to 5, 8 are in respect of CICS / CCS are for the period post-1.6.2007, hence the issue stands squarely covered by this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He prays that following the ratio already laid down in these decisions, Appeal ST/40901/2014 may be allowed on these issues for the said demands. 2.7 Counsel submits that demand in respect of Sl.No.6 is not disputed by appellant and paid by them. However, interest amount in respect of Sl.No.6 (Rs. 57,41,432) and Sl.No.7 (Rs. 33,54,564) relates to calculation of interest for the delayed payment of service tax which needs verification by lower authority. Sl.No.9 (Rs. 2,01,305/-) also requires remand as the demand is not clearly mentioned. Hence he prays for remand of the matter on the issue of interest liability of these amounts. 2.8 As regards Sl.No.10 (Rs. 16,19,255/-) pertaining to reimbursable expenses collected from tenants for electricity, water, diesel etc., he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal ST/1/2012 may be allowed in respect of these demands. 3.3 As regards amount of Rs. 24,09,527 (Sl.No.3), allegedly collected as 'corpus fund', he submits that the said amounts are received from buyers of flats and it would be passed on to the owner's association and hence it is not a consideration for service. He relies on the following case laws : (i) Vijayashanti Builders Ltd. Vs CST - 2018 (9) GSTL 257 (Tri-Chennai) (ii) Kumar Beheray Rathi Vs CST - 2014 (34) STR 139 (Tri.-Bom.) (iii) CCE Vs Sri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises - 2018 (14) GSTL 533 (Bom.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri A. Cletus supports the impugned orders. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 We intend to take the issues appeal wise. 5.2 Demands made under category of CICS / CCS : (i) Appeal ST/258/2012 Demand Rs. 94,62,842/- under CICS on composite contract with interest SCN No.256/2009 dt. 24.06.2009 Impugned Order-in-Original No. 53/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Thoraipakkam STP, Ambattur STP and PGW (ii) Appeal ST/258/2012 Demand: Rs. 5,18,152/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmovable Property Service, we find merit in the Ld. Advocate's plea for remand of the matter to the original authority to substantiate their claim that they are entitled to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid by the owners of the property. Appeal ST/258/2012 is remanded only on this score to original authority. However, considering that the matter was mired in litigation for quite some time, penalties imposed in relation to this demand under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 are set aside. 5.5 Demands made under CICS / CCS: (i) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 59,08,138/- under CICS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned Order-in-Original No. 54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Shrotrium Project, Kottivakkam (ii) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 1,06,22,800/- CCS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned OIO No.54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Sriperumbudur Project (iii) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 7,39,011 under CICS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Demand Rs. 3,14,06,336 with interest under CICS (short payment) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: April 2009 to March 2011 Project: Prince Info City-II [builders share] (iii) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 93,38,878 with interest under CICS SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: April 2009 to March 2012 Project: Prince Info City-II [landowner share] (iv) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 2,66,03,013 with interest under CICS (short payment) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: April 2009 to Sept 2011 Project: Prince Info City-II [builders share] (v) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 77,28,508/- with interest under CICS (short payment) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: Oct 2011 to March 2012 Project: Prince Residenzia (v) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 43,49,793/- with interest under CCS (short pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant is acceded to. Accordingly, while no interference is made with regard to the connected demands, as regards the interest liability the issue is remanded to the adjudicating authority for limited purpose of re-quantification. Appeal ST/40901/2014 in respect of these demands is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. However, considering that the matter was mired in litigation for quite some time, penalties imposed in relation to this demand under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 are set aside. 5.7 i) Appeal ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 16,19,255/- under MMRS (non inclusion of electricity, diesel charges etc.) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: July 2010 to March 2012 The said dispute amount relates to expenses towards electricity, diesel and water expenses incurred by the appellants over and above the maintenance charges received from their clients. Counsel has placed reliance in UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). From the facts on record, it is evident that these amounts have been reimbursed by the clients and hence the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.8 (i) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 8,67,749 with interest SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Period: October 2004 to July 2006 Project: Prince Infocity, Kandanchavadi (ii) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 41,65,692 with interest SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Period : October 2006 to April 2007 Project : Prince Green Woods (iii) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 9,15,831 (under CON) + Rs. 3,10,807 (under CCS) = Rs. 12,26,638 with interest (short payment of tax - car parking, contingent and TNEB, CMW charges) SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Periods : March 2007 & April 2007, November 2006 to March 2007. Project : PGW and ASTP (iv) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 66,363/- with interest SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Period : October 2005 to....