9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. JAIPUR-I [ 2017 (7) TMI 1468 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the ratio laid down by MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [ 2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] as well as COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) SATISH CHANDRA: The present appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. 347, 344, 346, 345/2010 66/2011 dated 21.09.2010 dt. 17/22/.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the construction of residential complex services as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994. So, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lysis, we find that the impugned order as it stands with reference to tax liability of the appellant for construction of residential complex, is not sustainable. Accordingly, that portion of the finding is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
