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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal Overturns Order on Service Tax for Residential Construction, Case Remanded for Fresh Decision.</h1> <h3>Nahar Singh; Bhourilal Mohanlal; M/s Budhania Builders; Pradeep Kumar Jain & Bhorilal Mohanlal Versus CCE, Jaipur-I</h3> The Tribunal set aside the previous order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Jaipur, concerning service tax on construction of residential ... Levy of service tax - construction of complex services - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. JAIPUR-I [2017 (7) TMI 1468 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the ratio laid down by MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] as well as COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] was discussed. Finally the Tribunal observed that 'the impugned order as it stands with reference to tax liability of the appellant for construction of residential complex, is not sustainable. Accordingly, that portion of the finding is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision'. Thus, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of the above observation, but by providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Jaipur regarding service tax on construction of residential complex services. The Tribunal set aside the finding and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision based on legal precedents and factual details. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present their case. All appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by way of remand.