9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avan Kumar, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao 1. Heard both sides and perused the records. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. VIZ-STX-001-COM-120-12 dated 22.11.2012. 2. The appellant is engaged in construction of residential complexes and they obtained Registration on 30.07.2010 under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical view was also taken in the case of Mehta & Modi Homes [2019 (2) TMI 476 - CESTAT-HYD] and Grandeur Homes Pvt Ltd., [2019 (2) TMI 772- CESTAT-HYD]. He would therefore submit that up to 01.07.2010 they were not be liable to pay service tax. From 01.07.2010 they entitled to abatement of 75% / 70% in terms of Notification No.26/12-ST dated 20.06.2012. Secondly, he would argue that the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut it is only that the department would like to classify the services differently. It is only a matter of classification dispute and hence department has not made out a case for imposition of penalty. 4. Learned counsel would also submit that as per CBEC's Circular No.F.No. 332/22/2015-TRU dated 05.09.2006 clarified that w.e.f. 01.07.2012 Section 65(105)(zzzh) and 66 E(b) of the Finance Act, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, the demand of service tax prior to 01.07.2010 is liable to be set aside. As far as the period post 01.07.2010 is concerned, the appellant has raised a doubt regarding the classification of the services, claimed that they are entitled to abatement of 75%/70% in terms of Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and that there was a duplication of the amounts received by counting them fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
