9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. 255 of 2011-DB - A/12460/2021 - Dated:- 26-10-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate Present For the Respondent : Shri J. A. Patel, Superintendent (AR) ORDER This appeal has been filed by Aayushi Enterprise against order in Revision passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vadodara in exercise of powers under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner has vide impugned order set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner F.No. V/STC/VAD-II/Ref/Aushi13/2007/VADODARA Dated 30/12/2008. 2. Learned Counsel submitted that appellant is a partnership firm involved in the construction, pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through copy of contract, sale agreement of the flat, sale agreement of the land. Learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant has acted as Developer and the construction of the residential complex was carried by engaging contractor. He argued that the decision of Commissioner is not in line with the circular no. 332/35/2006-TRU dated 01.08.2006 and 108/2009 ST dated 29.01.2009. 2.1 Learned Counsel argued that the appellant had constructed residential complex with more than 12 units by engaging contractors. Thus even if residential complex having more than 12 units has been constructed, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax because the units got constructed by engaging contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order. He argued that the appellant purchased the land from proprietor and therefore, became the contractor. 4. We have considered rival submissions. The first and foremost issue to be decided is if the Commissioner at the time of passing the order had enjoyed the Revisionary powers or not. Section 84 of Finance Act was substituted on 19.08.2009. The powers of Commissioner for Revision of orders was done away at the effect from 19.08.2009. Tribunal in the following cases has held that no Order in Revision can be passed. (1) Bhawani Corporation vs CCE-2017 (3) GSTL 372 (T) and (2) Securitrans India (P) Ltd. vs CST 2017 (49)(STR). In the case of Securitrans India (P) Ltd. (supra) following has been observed: 5. Heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
