Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2024 (7) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-II, Noida. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is collecting charges from their Customers under the category of "Interest Free Maintenance Security [IFMS]" and "Annual Maintenance Charges [AMC]". Revenue by entertaining a view that such charges collected by the Appellant from the Flat Owners would form value of the services provided by them under "Maintenance, Management & Repair Services". Accordingly demand was raised by issuing a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 15.10.2014 for the period July, 2010 to June, 2012 for the differential service tax amount of Rs.47,66,807/-. The same stands confirmed by the Lower Authorities alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. Hence the present appeal bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same. 5. In any case, we also note that the issue stands decided by precedent decisions of the Tribunal. Reference can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE & ST, Jaipur v. Sand Dunes Construction Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (7) TMI-1383-CESTAT-New Delhi, whereby while taking note of the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Beheray Rathi v. CCE, Pune - 2013 (12) TMI-269-CESTAT Mumbai = 2014 (34) S.T.R. 139 (Tri.-Mum.). It was held that the security deposits collected by the Builder for providing maintenance to immovable property services would not be taxable under the category of 'Management Maintenance or Repairs Services'. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided, we find no reason to take a different view. Acco....