2021 (11) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellate Tribunal, ('CESTAT' for short), South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru. 2. The respondent herein is engaged in the construction of independent villas registered with Service Tax. During the period 16.06.2005 to 31.10.2006, the respondent discharged the service tax liability under the category of 'construction of residential complex service'. Subsequently, claimed the payment of service tax collected as erroneous and paid under coercion, contending that the independent residential houses were constructed for individuals and the same was approved by the local authority in individual names of the owners of the plots and the individual houses, does not come within the purview of residential complex. The adjudicating authority rejected the refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting Authority and the First Appellate Authority have rightly rejected the refund claim but CESTAT merely placing reliance on the judgment of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., (supra) and not appreciating even the question of unjust enrichment, has proceeded to allow the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent/assessee would submit that the construction activities of the respondent would not certainly come within the definition of residential complex under Section 65(91a) of the Act and the explanation thereof. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., (supra), is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the same having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the CESTAT was right in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Having heard the le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... residence;" 8. In Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., CESTAT, Chennai while considering the identical issue has observed thus: "It is abundantly clear from the above provisions that construction of residential complex having not more than 12 residential units is not sought to be taxed under the Finance Act, 1994. For the levy, it should be residential complex comprising more than 12 residential units. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellants constructed individual residential houses, each being a residential unit, which fact is also clear from the photographs shown to us. In any case, it appears, the law makers did not want construction of individual residential units to be subject to levy of service tax. Unfortunately, this aspect was....