Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 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."
Finance Act, 1999
Madhukar Mittal vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 19 October, 2011
19. It is not possible to accept the reasoning given by the Principal
Commissioner for the simple reason that in the present case also the
9
Service Tax Appeal No.52243 of 2016 [DB]
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 6 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.
M/S. Lakhlan & Qureshi Construction Co vs C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I on 7 April, 2015
17. 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-15.
1