Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vinod Kumar Goyal vs C.C.E. Jaipur-I on 8 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. ST/1172/2010-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 215(DKV)JPR-I/2010 dated 25.05.2010, by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-I].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Vinod Kumar Goyal .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-I .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Vijayan Khongal, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 08.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 55014/2016-CU(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants have been assessed to service tax under the category of construction of residential complex on the ground that they have constructed individual houses for and on behalf of Rajasthan Housing Board, under works contract placed upon them.
2. The appellants contention is that they have constructed individual houses on individual plots and as such in terms of the Tribunals decision in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. Vs. CST Chennai 2008 (12) STR 603 (Tri-Chennai), the same cannot be equated with construction of residential complex. We note that though the said decision was placed before Commissioner (A). He had not followed the same on the ground that as the number of residential units constructed by the appellant are more than 12, the same were covered by the definition of construction of residential premises.
3. We find that the lower authorities have misapplied the decision of the Tribunal which also stands confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court reported as Commissioner Vs. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 2012 (25) STR J154 (SC). The said decision of the Tribunal clearly laid down that construction of individual residential houses each being the residential unit cannot be called as a residential complex comprising of more than 12 units so as to attract liability. We also note that the work was being done by the appellant under works contract in which case, duty liability would arise only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 onwards as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. L&T 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC).
4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the law laid down in the above referred judgments. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court]
(V. Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
ST/1172/2010-CU(DB)