9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to service tax under Construction of Residential Complex Service. 02. Shri S J Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is no more under dispute as the same has been decided in various cases. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * M/S GANPATI MEGA BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, -2021 (8) TMI 294 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD * M/S JETHANAND ARJUNDAS & SONS VERSUS CCE & ST. INDORE 2018 (11) TMI 757 - CESTAT NEW DELHI * C.C. & C.E. & S.T. ALLAHABAD VERSUS GANESH YADAV 2017 (5) TMI 1251 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD. * MS KHURANA ENGINEERING :LIMITED. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - 2022 (12) TMI 1053 CESTAT AHMEDABAD * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vs. Commr of ST., New Delhi - 2015 (38) STR. 583 (Tri - Del) (b) Khurana Engineering Limited vs. Commr of C. Ex., Ahmedabad - 2011 (21) S.TR. 115 (Tri-Ahmd.) (c) Tax Appeal No.926 of 2011 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Versus Khurana Engineering Ltd. Order dated 14.09.2018 (d) Sh.DH. Patel and Sh. RN Dobariya vs. CCE & ST, Surat-2013 (10) TMI 815 -CESTAT, AHMEDABAD (e) Shri. S. Kadirvel vs. CCE & ST, Trichy vide Final Order No.41504/2018 dated 11.05.2018 (f) Brahma Developers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli - 2018 (10) GSTL 27 (Tri-Chennai) (g) Commissioner of C EX, Aurgangabad vs. Mall Enterprises-2016 (41) S.TR. 199 (Tri-Mumbai) (h) Mittal Construction Versus Commissioner of C. EX. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax liability for the work undertaken by them for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (GSPHCL) during the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the dues on the ground that GSPHCL is Government of Gujarats public purpose vehicle or Company, hence ineligible to avail any exemption granted for any work which is done for or on behalf of Government. 5., 6. .... ..... 7. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands on the appellants on the ground that they are providing services of Commercial or Industrial construction services which are covered under section 65(30 a) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended and subsequently amended as per section 65. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has made out a case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals." (b) Similarly in the case of Shri S. Kadirvel vs. CCE & ST, Trichy (supra) which was relied upon in above decision, the Chennai Bench passed the following order:- "5.1 The period involved is from 16.06.2005 to 31.08.2007. As rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, demand for the period prior to 11.06.2007 cannot sustain on application of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larson & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 5.2 A small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not attracted. Personal use has been defined as permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. In this case what emerges is that ITC intended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of 'personal use' in the explanation. The next question that arises is whether it gets excluded under the circumstances. The circular issued by C.B.E.&C. on 24-5-2010 relied upon by the learned counsel is relevant. Para 3 of this circular which is relevant is reproduced below : "3. As per the information provided in your letter and during discussions, the Ministry of Urban Development (GOI) has directly engaged the NBCC for constructing residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sub-contractors have paid the service tax. In such a situation in our opinion, there is no liability on the appellant to pay the service tax" The above definition specifically excludes construction undertaken for personal use and such personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person. We find that the above exclusion clause covers the construction activity undertaken by the assessee. Following the said decision, we are of the view that the demand after 01.06.2007 also cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any." 5. In view of the above decisions, which are directly rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
