https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374849 The appellant, a works contract service provider, sold residential bungalows under construction and ceased service tax payment based on CBEC clarifications. A show cause notice sought service tax for April 2006 to December 2010. The Commissioner upheld the demand and penalties, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that their construction did not meet the definition of a residential complex under the Finance Act, as none had over 12 units. They also claimed the personal use benefit exclusion. Citing precedent, the Bench ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:04:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374849 The appellant, a works contract service provider, sold residential bungalows under construction and ceased service tax payment based on CBEC clarifications. A show cause notice sought service tax for April 2006 to December 2010. The Commissioner upheld the demand and penalties, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that their construction did not meet the definition of a residential complex under the Finance Act, as none had over 12 units. They also claimed the personal use benefit exclusion. Citing precedent, the Bench ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374849