9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D BUILDCON LTD. [ 2013 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the explanation cannot be have retrospective effect and that in view of the various clarifications issued by C.B.E. C. during the relevant time no Service Tax liability can be imposed on the respondent for this type of activity. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/781/2010 -[DB] - Final Order No. 60871/2019 - Dated:- 23-10-2019 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Rajeev Gupta Vijay Gupta, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Maharaja Developers vs. Asst. Commr., Nagpur 2016 (41) STR 381 (Bom.) (c) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co. 2013 (31) STR 86 (Tri. Del.) (d) CCE, Kanpur vs. Vee Aar Developers Pvt Ltd 2013 (30) STR 564 (Tri. Del.) (e) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Green View Land Buildcon Ltd 2013 (29) STR 527 (Tri. Del.) 3. The ld. A.R. relied on the impugned order. He did not point out any law or fact, to distinguish this case from the decisions of the case laws cited by the appellant. 4. We have considered rival submissions. 5. It is seen that the definition of the service liable to tax under the head of construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the respondents were taking advances from the prospective buyers for construction of flats and therefore there was a service being rendered by the respondents to the perspective buyers of the flats. He argues that this position has been clarified by the explanation added under Section 65(105)(zzzh) by Finance Act, 2010. He also relies on the decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of G.S. Promoters v. UOI - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 100 (P H). 3. The Counsel for respondent submits that the explanation added at by Finance Act, 2010 cannot have retrospective effect and this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. ST/A/190-197/2012-Cus., dated 13-3-2012 in Appeal No. S.T./463/2008 (Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this circular makes it more than abundantly clear that when a builder, promoter or developer undertakes construction activity for its own self, then in such cases, in the absence of relationship of service provider and service recipient , the question of providing taxable service to any person by any other person does not arise at all. In the present case too, the materials placed by the writ petitioners clearly show that the construction activities which the petitioners have been undertaking, are in respect of the petitioners own work and it is only the completed construction work, which is sold by the petitioner company to the buyers who may have made agreements for sale before the construction had actually stated or during the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
