S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. All these appeals involve similar questions of law and facts and were heard together. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

2. The Central Excise Appeal No. 289 of 2016, from which we take the facts, is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Cestat" for short), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, dated 7.3.2016.

3. By the order under appeal, the Cestat held that the assessee before us could not be called upon to pay service tax on amounts which are collected as maintenance charges for upkeep of the apartment or premises. The Cestat further held that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by its prior orders.

4. To appreciate the correctness of this legal conclusion and finding that even otherwise the appeals involve substantial questions of law, we proceed to admit these appeals on the following substantial questions of law:"

(a) Whether the Cestat was right in holding that the assessee was not providing Management, Maintenance or Repair Service by collecting amount from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, in the guise of deposits