9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat:- In the case of Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry vs. UOI [2012 (1) TMI 98 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it was observed that, the explanation inserted vide Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1.7.2010, requires to be construed as prospective; and prior to introduction of the Explanation, constructions on ones own properties by a builder /developer for the purpose of sale thereafter would not tan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Kanpur was reversed. 2. The primary Authority confirmed service tax demand of ₹ 12,11,120/- apart from interest and penalties on the ground that appellant during 16.6.2005 to 25.3.2006 had provided construction of residential complex service to several recipients but failed to obtain registration, file return or remit service tax due on the consideration received by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation. As per the Explanation, construction of complex intended for sale, wholly or partly by a builder or any person authorized by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases where no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorized by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of residential complex service. 4. In the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court (supra), there being no contrary decison brought to our notice, the impugned order, of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.7.2008 is seen to be impeccable, warranting no interference. 5. Revenues appeal is without merits and is therefore dismissed. No costs however. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
