2019 (12) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aveen Bindal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Rai, Authorised Representative ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 74,98,182/- along with interest and various penalties under Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the activity of construction of residential flats and was not pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfirmed by way of impugned order. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the demand of Rs. 3,24,992/- but is contesting the demand of Rs. 71,73,190/- on the ground that there is no mechanism of recovery of service tax for construction of residential flats, therefore, the service tax cannot be dem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal observed as under: "7. On careful consideration of submissions and made by both the sides, the first issue arose in the matter is that when appeal has been filed against the order of Suresh Kumar Bansal (Supra) by Revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court can the said decision be relied on or not? 8. The said issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Spa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... set aside. In results, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any." 7. Considering the fact that there is no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal  (supra) wherein it has been held that there is no mechanism of recovery of service tax from the appellant; in that circumstance, the service tax is not payable by the appellant. There....