Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jaina Ram Builder & Contractor vs Cce&St, Jaipur-Ii on 28 December, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 28.12.2015 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Service Tax Appeal No. 50538 of 2014 with Service Tax Stay Application No. 50682 of 2014 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 298 299/OPD/CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Jaipur). M/s Jaina Ram Builder & Contractor Appellants Vs. CCE&ST, Jaipur-II Respondent
Appearance:
Shri O. P. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant Shri B. B. Sharma, DR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53832 / 2015 Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
Heard ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. DR for the respondent Revenue.
2. At the stage of hearing the stay application, since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions, we waive pre-deposit and dispose of the appeal itself, with the consent of both parties.
3. The appeal is against the order dated 21.10.2013 of the ld. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur whereby Revenues appeal against the adjudication order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise-II was allowed. The primary adjudication order dropped the demand initiated by the show cause notice dated 20.10.2011 on the ground that the appellant had constructed independent residential units for the Rajasthan Housing Board and this activity was outside the scope of the definition of Construction Of Complex Service defined in Section 65(30a) read with Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. The ld. appellate Commissioner however allowed Revenues appeal and distinguished the decision of the Tribunal in A.S. Sicarwar and Macro Marvel Projects vs. CST 2008 (12) STR 603 (Tri. Chennai). The later decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court while rejecting Revenues appeal thereagainst. The impugned order of the ld. appellate Commissioner is fundamentally misconceived. It is contrary to the true and fair construction of the relevant statutory provisions as well as the interpretation placed thereupon by several decisions by the Tribunal including those referred to supra. It also requires to be noticed that the decision of this Tribunal in A.S. Sicarwar vs. CCE, Indore was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide its order dated 19.09.2013 passed in an appeal preferred by Revenue thereagainst.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed. No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) Pant