9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to 1.6.2007 is liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CCE & CC Kerala Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. For the period subsequent to 1.6.2007, In a number of decisions, the higher appellate forums have consistently held that there is no liability to pay service tax for the reason that the complex so constructed are intended for personal use which is excluded in the definition of construction of residential complex. Demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.: ST/00558/2012 - Final Order No. 42273/2018 - Dated:- 9-8-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. S. Govindarajan, AC (AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. S. Govindarajan, Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue, relied on the Order of the AA as well as the grounds of appeal. 4. Per contra , Shri. M. N. Bharathi, Ld. Advocate, contended that the very same issue has been considered by this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramalingam Construction Co.(P).Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Salem (Final Order No. 41891-41896/2018 dt. 29.06.2018) apart from the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Khurana Engineering Lt. (supra). He further drew our attention to the findings of the Bench in the case of Ramalingam Construciton Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under : 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41146/2018 dt. 13.03.2018 and S.Kadirvel [Final Order No.41504/2018 dt. 11.05.2018 in Appeal ST/446/2011] involving construction of residential complex, for TNPHCL for use of police personnel, and relying upon the CESTAT Bangalore decision in Nithesh Estates Ltd. Vs CCE ST Bangalore - 2015 (40) STR 815 (Tri.-Bang.), has held that the houses so constructed rested with TNPHCL which is nothing but an extended arm of the Government and they are only meant for personal use. 10.5 Even after the negative list regime w.e.f. 1.7.2012, higher appellate forums have consistently held that services provided by contractors to Housing Boards, Local Development Authority under JNNRUM etc. there could be no service tax liability since such houses et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a scheme neither intended for commerce or industry and further held as not taxable either under WCS or under CICS. 10.6 In impugned order No.05/2012 dt. 28.09.2012 (Appeal ST/40066/2013) the work of (i) filling low lying area and (ii) construction of retaining wall at RP Nagar, Madurai under JNNURM has been held as composite work of construction of 720 tenements at the same site and part and parcel of construction of residential complex services only. Be that as it may, as already held supra, the services in relation to construction of such tenements will not be exigible to service tax liability. Tax liability demanded in respect of these works will also require to be set aside, which we hereby do. 10.7 In the event, the above d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
