2018 (7) TMI 1444 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Classification of Services – Construction of Complex Services or not? – Department noticed that the appellant was not paying service tax on certain amounts recovered by them from their customers towards ‘Car Parking charges’ and demanded tax under the head Construction of Complex Services.
–
Held that:- Car Parking Charges are admittedly towards provision of open car parking place within the residential complex – the provision of parking place within the residential complex is very much included within the definition of residential complex and the same will be liable to payment of service tax under the said category – demand upheld – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – S.T. Appea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ain amounts recovered by them from their customers towards Car Parking charges . The Department was of the view that such amounts are liable for payment of service tax under the category of Construction of Complex Services falling under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 17.12.2013 was issued and the case was adjudicated vide the impugned order in which the service tax demand of ₹ 3,31,497/- was ordered alongwith interest and penalties. The impugned order has been challenged in the present proceedings. 3. With the above background, we heard Sh. Devesh Parekh, ld. C.A. for the appellant as well as Shri A. K. Singh, ld. AR for the Revenue. 4. Ld. C.A. submitted that Car Parking Charges w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tification No. 1/2006 as amended. However, they will be entitled to the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 as available to the residential complex. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He submitted that parking place only stands excluded from (zzzzu), but the same is very much included within the definition of residential complex under Section 65 (91a). Accordingly, he submitted that service tax liability may be upheld. 6. We have heard both sides and perused record and note that the dispute is limited to the amounts recovered by the appellant form the buyers of apartment towards Car Parking Charges . Such charges are admittedly towards provision of open car parking place within the residential complex. Af
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =