AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007 to 31 March, 2012, a demand of Rs. 12,356/- for the period 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013, and a demand of Rs. 735/- for the period 1 April, 2013 to 31 March, 2014. Interest and penalty have also been imposed upon the appellant. 2. The appellant, a partnership firm, is engaged in civil construction work for some of the Government Departments. During the period from 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2014, the appellant undertook the following works for the Departments:- Sl.No. Department Nature of Work 1. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Inter State Bus Terminus platform including building works, water supply, sanitary work and internal electrification. 2. Capital Project Authority Construction of Office Building for the Commercial Tax Department, GoMP. 3. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Individual Duplex under Vedavati Avasia Yojana, Amravat Khurd. 4. Bhopal Development Authority Construction of Individual Duplex under Vedavati Avasiya Yojana, Amravat Khurd. 3. Three show cause notices were issued to the appellant. The first show cause notice dated 18 April, 2013 was issued for the period 1 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2012, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Principal Commissioner could not have levied penalty and interest upon the appellant; and (vi) The extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the fact and circumstances of the present case. 7. The learned Authorized Representative of the Department has, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal. It is his submission that the appellant failed to produce any documents before the Principal Commissioner to substantiate the defence taken by the appellant in regard to GTA service and, therefore, it is not open to the appellant to now substantiate the submission by placing reliance upon documents which had not been filed before the Principal Commissioner in reply to the show cause notice. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and the learned Authorised Representative of the Department have been considered. 9. The first dispute in the present appeal relates to the work undertaken by the appellant for the Bhopal Development Authority for construction of Inter State Bus Terminus platform. 10. It is pointed out by the learned Chartered Accountant for the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction Company in regard to the construction of the same Inter State Bus Terminal has observed as follows:- "3. The point for consideration is the service tax liability of the respondent for construction activity of commercial portion of ISBT. We find that the Revenue is contesting the finding of the lower authorities on the ground that the exclusion available under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" for transport terminals cannot be applied to the commercial portion of the ISBT constructed by the respondent. We find that in terms of Section 65(25b) of Finance Act, 1994, the taxable service does not include such service provided in respect of the roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams. Admittedly, ISBT is transport terminal which is clearly excluded from the definition of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" for service tax purposes. When the construction of ISBT is not a taxable service, there cannot be any bifurcation of that activity for service tax. We find no substance in the appeal by the Revenue on these grounds." 15. Thus, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, it is not possible to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complex comprising of a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units. In other words a complex may have a building having more than twelve residential units or a complex may have more than one building each having more than twelve residential units. Independent buildings having twelve or less than twelve residential units would not be covered by the definition of "residential complex". In the present case, the appellant had constructed independent buildings having one residential unit only. Thus, even if the appellant had constructed more than 12 independent buildings, the nature of activity would not be "construction of complex" and, therefore, the service tax could be levied. 21. In this connection reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2008 (12) STR 603 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein the demand of Service Tax was for the period 16 June, 2005 to November, 2005 under "construction of complex" service under section 65(30a) of the Act. The Bench examined the scope of "construction of complex" and the meaning of 'residential complex' under section 65....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent houses and not a complex and hence their activity was not taxable under the entry 65(105)(zzzh) which adopts definition in Section 65(91a). He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri.-Chennai). 2. The Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that the explanation under Section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994 gives definition of "residential unit" to mean "a house or single apartment intended for use as a place of residence". Even if the residential units are separate, it will be covered by the definition, according to him. 3. The A.R. further submits that the decision in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. was with reference to the entry for works contract under Sections 65(105)(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994 whereas the present case is in respect of construction of residential complex under entry 65(105)(zzzb). He also points out that the Tribunal in para-2 of the order has observed as under :- "These observations of ours with reference to 'works contract' have been occasioned by certain specific grounds of this appeal and the same are not intended to be a binding preced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplex" since the condition given in para (i) is nto fulfilled. Again in this regard the Noticee relied on the decision of Macro Marvel reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri. - Chennai), further affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in 2012 (25) S.T.R. J154 (S.C.) and A.S. Sikarwar reported in 2012 (28) S.T.R. 479 (Tri. - Del.). 35. Here it is important to note that the case laws quoted by the Noticees are not applicable in their case in as much as they have done construction of houses development work in complex having more than 12 residential units, common community hall, common parking area, and common part which clearly satisfy the definition of residential complex in Section 65 (91a) of Finance Act, 1994 and service of construction of complex defined in Sections 65 (30a) and 65 (105)(zzzh) ibid - Impugned service clearly covered under construction of complex service liable to service tax - sections 65(91a), 65(30a) and65 (105)/(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994." 36. This view is also supported by the decision of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Madhukar Mittal versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula reported in 2015(40) S.T.R. 969 (Tri.- Del.) wherein it has been held - "5....