9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Institutions - period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- It needs to noted that for the period prior to April 2012, show cause notices were issued to the respondent on the same ground namely that construction for Educational Institutions would be taxable under CICS but the demand raised in the show cause notices were dropped. The Department filed appeals before the Tribunal which app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount received towards construction of Educational Institutions for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 has been dropped. 2. The respondent M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd [the respondent], undertook various construction projects, including that relating to construction activities for Educational Institutions. Service tax was not paid by the respondent as it felt that such activity would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand accepting the contention of the respondent without commenting on allegations made in the show cause notice; ii. The Adjudicating Authority followed the earlier order without verifying the fact that an appeal had been filed against the said order; iii. The Circular dated 17.09.2004 was withdrawn by Circular dated 23.08.2007 and construction service to Educational Institutions was not ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that construction services for Educational Institute are provided for consideration and thus commercial and taxable. We find that Revenue has not appreciated the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction service. A perusal of definition shows that to decide the taxability under said service, user of the building, so constructed, is relevant. Clarification has been issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Priyamvada Joshi appearing for the respondent stated that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has attained finality. 9. This fact has not been refuted by Shri Anup k. Thapliyal, Authorized Representative appearing for the Department. 10. Such being the position, when the contention advanced by the Department in the aforesaid appeal decided on 12.09.2018 has not been accepted and that order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
