9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; (i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units. (ii) a common area; and (iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was decided that where each of the buildings is not having more than 12 units, the construction activity will not be covered by the said entry. She further submits that they are in a position to demonstrate that separate approvals were taken for each of the house from the municipal authorities and commons roads were surrendered to the local panchayat. She submits that these evidences were placed before the lower authorities. Further, she relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 2012 (25) STR J 154 (SC) wherein a similar issue decided originally by Chennai Bench of the Tribunal holding that no service tax would be leviable and the same was approved by the Hon. Apex Court. Her conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the case of Shri Ranga Rao Vs CCE Coimbatore in Appeal No.ST/148/11 wherein vide Stay Order No.824/12 dt. 10.12.12, predeposit of about 30% was called for and also Tribunal's earlier decision in respect of the same assessee as reported at 2012 (25) STR 465 (Tri.-Chennai). 5. Considered the submissions on both sides. We find that this is very highly contentious issue as already recorded in para-6 of the stay order dt.10.12.12 in the case of Sri Ranga Rao and the issue can be decided only by going into the details of the facts of this case. Considering that pre-deposit was called for the earlier period in respect of the same project of the assessee, we do not find it proper to grant complete waiver of pre-deposit in this case. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
