TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Construction of Residential Houses Not Taxable Activity under Finance Act, 1994</h1> <h3>AS Sikarwar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore</h3> AS Sikarwar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 479 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Whether the construction of 15 residential houses constitutes a taxable activity under entry 65(105)(zzzh) for 'construction of complex' as per the Finance Act, 1994.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'residential unit' under section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Applicability of the definition of 'residential complex' under section 65(91a) for both works contract and construction of a residential complex.4. Impact of the Supreme Court's decision on the appeal filed by the Revenue.Analysis:1. The Appellants argued that their construction of 15 independent houses did not constitute a complex under entry 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, which requires each building to have more than 12 residential units. They relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. CST [2008] 17 STT 479 (Chennai - CESTAT) to support their position.2. The Revenue contended that even if the residential units are separate, they should be considered under the definition of 'residential unit' as per section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes a house or single apartment intended for use as a place of residence.3. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions under section 65(91a) and concluded that the definition of 'residential complex' applies to both works contract and construction of a residential complex. It emphasized that the interpretation of 'residential complex' should be consistent across different tax levies, rejecting the argument that it should vary based on the type of activity.4. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal in a similar matter, establishing a precedent that service tax can only be demanded under section 65(105)(zzzh) if a building has more than 12 residential units. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Appellants based on the established legal principles and precedents.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.
TaxTMI 