AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Service Tax, Chennai, whereby the Commissioner-Adjudicating Authority has demanded the Service Tax under Section 73(1) read with Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from April 2006 to September 2009, along with applicable interest and penalty, as proposed in the Show Cause Notices. 2. Brief facts, which are relevant for our consideration and which are undisputed, are that the appellant is a developer engaged in the development of residential projects and during the course of its business, it enters into composite contracts with the buyers. The Revenue issued three Show Cause Notices, namely:- Sl. No. SCN No. Date Period 1. SCN No. 398/2010 27.7.2010 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 2. SCN No. 47....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his very Bench, in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has considered the orders of various Benches of the CESTAT wherein the decision in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court was considered, and has concluded as under:- "8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying on the ratios of the case laws cited supra, we hold as under:- a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid down therein applies to the case on hand. Therefore, we accept the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant. 6.1 The other issue involved is the levy of Service Tax on the miscellaneous income which was treated as receipts towards construction services. The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the appellant had made certain payments towards purchase of land to M/s. Norne Homes Pvt. Ltd. and hence, the same was not a consideration received for providing any service. In this context, she would rely on the following orders of the Bangalore Bench and the Ahmedabad Bench of the CESTAT:- (i) M/s. Synergy Audio Visual Workshop P. Ltd. v. Commr. of S.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Audio Visual Workshop Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T. Bangalore 2008 (10) S.T.R. 578 (Tri. - Bang.), the Tribunal observed as under : The other ground is for confirming demands is that the appellants had shown certain amounts due from the parties in their Income Tax returns and Revenue has proceeded to demand Service Tax on this amount shown in the Balance Sheet. The appellants have relied on large number of judgments which has settled the issue that amounts shown in the Income Tax returns or Balance Sheet are not liable for Service Tax. In view of these judgments, the appellant succeed on this ground also. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. In the matter of Commissioner of C.Ex. Jaipur-I Vs. Tahal Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Service Tax. Further, the respondent's contention that they have rendered services outside the jurisdiction of Rajasthan and have discharged the Service Tax in Chandigarh and Lucknow, could have been verified with the concerned jurisdictional Chandigarh Commissionerate office. Departmental authority at Jaipur have no jurisdiction to proceed against the respondent for demanding Service Tax without any evidence of taxable service being provided within their jurisdiction. We find that there is nothing in the grounds of appeal which makes us to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal did not advert to any assertion as to how the Service Tax demand can be made when there is no evidence to any taxa....