9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of Suresh Kumar Bansal and Others in the impugned order is not legal and proper, inasmuch as the said judgment was not "in rem", rather it was "in-personnem". Thus, the Revenue contented that the issue decided in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal and others cannot be applied in case of the present appellants. 2. Heard both side perused the case records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein, have filed refund application based upon the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in above cases, wherein, the levy of Service Tax was challenged on services in relation to the construction of complex as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants have filed the application on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly reflects that Service Tax cannot be charged in respect of the composite contracts entered into with the builders. The judgment delivered is general in nature and nowhere in the entire judgment it has been stated that the said judgment will be applicable exclusively to the petitioners only. So far as the opinion of the adjudicating authority that applicability of the said case in personnem is concerned, I do not feel myself in agreement with the same because the verdict has been given in absolute and unequivocal terms. There in not denying that the said writ petition has been filed by certain individual buyers of under construction flats, yet its connotation are such that it has wide ranging effects on all such buyers especially when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g discussions and the factual position of the issue in hand, as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has not been accepted by the Department, jurisprudence forbids that any consequential relief arising on account of the same cannot be given to the appellants especially when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the appeal of the department." 4. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the correct stand in deciding the appeals of the appellants. From the operative part of the impugned order, it transpires that there was no need for the Revenue to file any appeal against the impugned order, for the reason that the appeals of the appellant in context with the refund application were rejected by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
