TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by learned Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is a company incorporated as a special purpose vehicle to implement the concession agreement entered into by its parent company M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. [JAL] and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [YEA] for the development of Yamuna Expressway Project. The Appellant inter alia, is engaged in the construction and sale of residential properties to prospective buyers for development of the said land. The Appellant collected the following charges from home buyers for project developed. * Internal Development Charges (IDC) - collected for developing, maintaining parks, laying of sewerage w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 25 & 26 February, 2014 based on which audit objections were raised and various communication took place between the Appellant and the Department regarding availability of abatement for payment of service tax in terms of Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 in respect of above referred services. In light of the above audit objection and the communications, SCN dated 08.02.2017 was issued for the period from July, 2012 to March, 2015 by invoking the extended period of limitation proposing demand of service tax on charges such as PLC, EDC, ICD, ESSC & TC mainly on the ground that since Entry 12 of the Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 only allows abatement for construction of residential complexes and therefore, the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain service which is Residential Complex Service and therefore the entire consideration received by the Appellant are eligible for abatement under Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 4. Learned Authorized Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant being devoid of any merits may be dismissed. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. Appellant is provider of Residential Complex Services which are defined under 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 provide for Bundled Service. He has explained that w.e.f. 1-7-2012 Section 66F was introduced to the statute which has provided that when there are various elements of services then they are to be bundled together and shall be treated as provision of the Single Service which gives such bundle its essential character. He argued that the charges collected by the appellant such as External Development Charges, Preferred Location Charges, Internal Development Charges, Legal Specification Charges etc. do not have independent existence and they are associated the provision of Residential Complex Service and therefore, essentially they are various element of the service which is predominant for Residential Complex Service and therefore they cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment under said Notification No.26/2012-S.T. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the impugned orders." 8. Further in the Appellant's own case for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2012 the Tribunal vide Final Order No.70266/2023 dated 27.09.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No.55440/2014 allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2014. The relevant paragraphs of the Tribunal's Order dated 27.09.2023 are reproduced below:- "4.13 Undisputedly appellants had obtained registration for providing the taxable services as defined under 65 (105) (zzzh) and were paying service tax payable under that category after claiming abatement as provided for. It is also an admitted fact that the these charges....