2018 (8) TMI 485 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Classification of services – the appellant is rendered by various services, which the Revenue is attempting to classify under the Builders Special Services classifiable under Chapter Heading 65(105)(zzzu) of the Finance Act,1994 – Principles of Natural Justice – Held that:- On going through the various documents enclosed in the appeal memorandum, as such, agreement of sale, bank statement, bills provided by the various vendors, it is found that the appellant has returned excess amount to the flat owners after collection of various fees, as such, Association formation deposit, Common meter deposit, common maintenance deposit, common electricity charges etc. The same has been rendered after collection of actual amount spent for payment of this deposit/fees/base area on behalf of 120 flat owners – thus, this payments are only actual charges paid to the various statutory bodies and for electricity maintenance in common area and the same is therefo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
bh Bhutra, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kumar : The present appeal has been filed the Appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.219/ST-I/KOL/2017 dt.-26.09.2017 passed by Commissioner of CGST & Ex. (Appeals), Kolkata, vide which the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order passed by the adjudicating authority to the extent that he set aside the demand of ₹ 46,814/- under Rule 14 and penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He has also ordered the appellant to pay interest for intervening period under Section 75 of the Act and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. The rest of the order was upheld. 2. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable service as well as recipient of taxable service as per Section 68 (1) & 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) respectively read with
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sold by the appellant pertaining to (i) Association formation deposit, (ii) Common meter security deposit, (iii) Deposit for common maintenance for six months, (iv) Deposit for electricity charges for common areas of six months. The appellant-assessee discharged the service tax liability on the total sale price, but did not discharge the service tax liability on the amount received on account of different head as mentioned above. It was felt by the Department that the services provided under the aforesaid head is to be categorized under Builders Special Service and such deposit is to be added in the gross amount in the service tax. The Department relied upon the audited balance sheet. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the service tax has been raised for the period from 2010-2011 to 2013 on account of aforementioned services under the category of (a) Builders Association Special Service to the extent of ₹ 3,59,844/- (b) Availment of Cenvat Cred
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g adjustment towards various fees. The ld.Advocate also submitted that the impugned order classifying the services under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) under Manpower Recruitment Services is not sustainable on the ground that the appellant has availed various services from vendors as plumbing services, pipe laying and fittings, tap box fitting etc. and the payment has been late against the plumbing bill. In providing of services discharging service tax on this service, the appellant is not in receipt of manpower recruitment services. The ld.Advocate also stated that the impugned demand is barred by limitation as the extended period of limitation is not invokable in this case. As there is no malafide intention, suppression of facts and willful mis-statement, the ld.Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCEx., Chandigarh I : 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC). He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Cour
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
in the notice the period for which the escaped duty may be reclaimed would be confined to one year and in the absence of such a finding in the order passed under Section 11A(2) there would be no application of the penalty provision in Section 11AC of the Act. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saboo Coating Ltd. Vs. CCEx, Chandigarh : 2016 (36) STR 447 (Tri.- Del.), wherein the Tribunal has held as under : 4. As regards limitation, I find that there is no dispute by the lower authorities that the credit was availed and duly reflected in the returns. If there is no column in the returns to show the nature of the input services, the assessee cannot be blamed for not providing the details of the input services. It is well settled that non-disclosure of the fact which is not required to be disclosed in the law, cannot attribute any suppression to the assessee. As such, the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that appellants have not disclosed the digit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ppellant has returned excess amount to the flat owners after collection of various fees, as such, Association formation deposit, Common meter deposit, common maintenance deposit, common electricity charges etc. The same has been rendered after collection of actual amount spent for payment of this deposit/fees/base area on behalf of 120 flat owners. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that this payments are only actual charges paid to the various statutory bodies and for electricity maintenance in common area and the same is therefore, not liable to service tax and if so, abatement is available to them under the Service Tax Law. 8. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has passed not speaking order without discussing the submissions made by the Appellant and passed very cryptic order and has not quantified the demand in respect of penalty imposed under Sections 75, 77 of the Act and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =