2015 (7) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idential complexes were awarded to RITES Ltd., NBCC and IRCON International which in turn engaged the appellant for building the said complexes and the payment to the appellant were also made by them (i.e. RITES Ltd., NBCC and IRCON International). Thus the impugned service was provided by the appellant (as sub-contractor) to the said main contractors. It is also seen that the appellant never decl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demand of ₹ 1,77,67,451/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant had provided construction of complex service [(COCS- 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994] and evaded the impugned service tax by indulging in wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts. 2. The appellant has contended that residential complexes were made for defence personnel and for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... given in Section 65(91a) there was no doubt that the service rendered fell under the definition of residential complex and the only exclusion there-under is when the residential complex 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 . As has been br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X