TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice dated 18/09/2012 alleging therein that the appellant had provided Commercial & Industrial Construction service during the period 1/4/2007 to 31/3/2012 to various parties and it had not discharged service tax. The extended period demanding service tax was invoked in the impugned show cause notice because of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. 3. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide impugned order-in-original dated 29 November, 2013. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,28,99,460/-with interest & penalty on the following three services: (i) Construction of Janopayogi Bhawan for Maheshwari Samaj - service tax Rs. 15,19,628/-); (ii) Construction of Residential Q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(CESTAT HYD.) (b) N.S Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E & ST 2018 (11) G.S.T.L. 332 (Tri.-Del.) (c) Manisha Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Ghaziabad 2019 (24) GSTL 741 (Tri-All.). (d) Banna Ram Chaudhary Vs CCE, Jaipur reported in 2017 (3) GSTL 338 (Tri-Del.). 7. With regard to demand of service tax for construction of USQ and LSQ at GRP Campus, (Quarters for Police), the appellant submitted that it has constructed quarters for RSRDC and these quarters were used as the residence police personnel (State Govt. employees). Therefore, the activity is covered under the exclusion clause of definition of Residential Complex Services u/s 65 (91A) of the act. The appellant placed reliance on following case laws: (a) Khurana Engineering Ltd. V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Ministry of Textile, Government of India. The projects of KHTPL have been granted sanction vide letter dated 01.08.2006 by Ministry of Textiles. The Amenities building is for providing training and welfare facilities to the workers employed. The copy of MOA/AOA submitted shows KHTPL is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for implementation of Scheme of Central Government to provide various infrastructure facilities & common facilities to units established therein. Thus, KHTPL is not commercial entity but a body created by the Ministry of Textile for providing common infrastructure to textile industries. The appellant placed reliance on following case laws: (a) Vishwanathan Constructions (P) Ltd. vs C.C.E 2019 (21) GSTL 455 (Tri.-Chennai)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted in 2019 (3) TMI 955 - CESTAT Chennai. (iv) Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE reported in 2019 (5) TMI 1135 - CESTAT New Delhi. 11. The learned Counsel for appellant vehemently argued that major part of demand is barred by limitation as there is no suppression or mis-statement. The audit party of service tax visited the premises in March 2010 and all the records and returns including the agreements were shown to them and no objection was raised by them. Therefore, they were under bonafide belief about non-taxability of service under CICS. He relied on following judgments:- (i) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs CCE 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) (ii) CCE Vs Chemphar Drugs & liniments 19....