2019 (3) TMI 863

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in the CST, New Delhi V/s Gandharva Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is per incurrium as it have erred in ignoring and not following the binding ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] wherein under similar facts and circumstances where row houses were constructed under a housing scheme having one unit in each house, it have been held that such activity is not liable to Service Tax under ‘Construction of Residential Complex Service’. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellant S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... du, Raipur for CHB Agreement No. 8/2005-06 dated 2.6.2005 3,23,95,000/- 5. Construction of 190 (G) (Group-VII) Houses at Saddu, Raipur for CHB Agreement No. 9/2005-06 dated 2.6.2005 3,27,50,000/- 6. Construction of 60 LIG Houses at Deorikhurd, Bilaspur for CHB Agreement No. 24/2005-06 dated 24.11.2005 80,41,847/- TOTAL 7,31,86,847/- 3. The demand raised with respect to S.No. 1, 2 and 3 in the aforementioned table have been dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that as the activity is in the nature of construction of road, sewerage, the same are exempt under the specific exemption under the definition of CICS. 4. So far the demand under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' is concerned, it has b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see constructed row houses/ individual houses for CHB, this Tribunal set aside the demand observing that admittedly row houses is not a residential complex having 12 or more units/flats in any building. ii. The activities of the appellant are in the nature of composite contract involving goods and services and hence classifiable under the category of 'Works Contract Service' from 1st June, 2007 being the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner V/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. reported at 2015 (39) STR 913(SC). iii. The demand cannot be confirmed under 'Works Contract Service' in absence of any proposal in the show cause notice. iv. Under the facts and circumstances extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X