Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 65 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Shri A.S. Sikarwar vs Cce, Indore on 20 April, 2012
In view of above discussion, the judgments in the case of
Macro Mavel Projects Ltd. v. CST, Chennai (supra) and A.S.
Sikarwar v. CCE, Indore (supra) are not applicable to the facts
of the present case because in those cases individual residential
houses were constructed which did not satisfy the definition of
residential complex reproduced above. Thus, we hold that
impugned service clearly gets covered under construction of
complex service liable to service tax.‖
[Emphasis supplied].
Finance Act, 1999
Madhukar Mittal vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 19 October, 2011
26. It is not possible to accept the reasoning given by the Principal
Commissioner for the simple reason that in the present case also the
appellant has not constructed a residential complex having more
than 12 residential units. It has constructed independent buildings
having one residential unit. Reliance placed by the Principal
Commissioner on the decision of the Tribunal in Madhukar Mittal
vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula 8 is, therefore,
misplaced. The decisions of the Tribunal in Macro Marvel Project
and A.S. Sikarwar clearly apply to the facts of the present case.
The Finance Act, 2018
Cce, Bhopal vs Amar Construction Co on 22 November, 2016
12. The contention of learned Representative for the appellant
is that Inter State Bus Terminus platform is in the nature of a
Transport Terminal and is excluded from the definition. It is
also his submission that since it is for public utility, it cannot be
termed as construction to be used for commerce or industry and
in this connection reference has been made to the decision of
the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal vs.
Amar Construction Co.4
Macro Marvel Projects Limited, Chennai vs Cit (A), Chennai on 3 March, 2017
In view of above discussion, the judgments in the case of
Macro Mavel Projects Ltd. v. CST, Chennai (supra) and A.S.
Sikarwar v. CCE, Indore (supra) are not applicable to the facts
of the present case because in those cases individual residential
houses were constructed which did not satisfy the definition of
residential complex reproduced above. Thus, we hold that
impugned service clearly gets covered under construction of
complex service liable to service tax.‖
[Emphasis supplied].
M/S. Lakhlan & Qureshi Construction Co vs C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I on 7 April, 2015
24. It also needs to be noticed that the same view was expressed
by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/s.Lakhlan & Qureshi
Construction Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
and Service Tax, Jaipur-17.
1