9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as to for whom Ghaziabad Development Authority is getting them constructed whether for themselves or for any other agency. Therefore, said certificate is not concrete evidence. Further, the Revenue has raised another ground that in the case of clarification issued by CBEC dated 24.05.2010, Government of India was service receiver and Ghaziabad Development Authority is not government and the staf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers for Ghaziabad Development Authority during the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 satisfied the definition of construction of residential complex. Therefore, the respondents were issued with a show-cause-notice dated 10.10.2012 demanding service tax amounting to ₹ 17,16927/- under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for construction of said 54 staff quarters under the category of construction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as residential staff quarters and as clarified by CBEC, through letter F. No.332/16/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010, the same is not liable to levy of service tax. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 21.02.2014. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26.11.2014, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal, inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the respondent has argued that it is immaterial, whether the service receiver is government or not and that the finding of the appellate authority is that the residential units used for staff are not included in the definition of residential complex and that the certificate dated 04.12.2010 is ample evidence that the construction undertaken by respondent was construction as staff quar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
