TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. is liable to service tax under Construction of Residential Complex Service. 02. Shri S J Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is no more under dispute as the same has been decided in various cases. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- • M/S GANPATI MEGA BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, -2021 (8) TMI 294 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD • M/S JETHANAND ARJUNDAS & SONS VERSUS CCE & ST. INDORE 2018 (11) TMI 757 - CESTAT NEW DELHI • C.C. & C.E. & S.T. ALLAHABAD VERSUS GANESH YADAV 2017 (5) TMI 1251 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD. • MS KHURANA ENGINEERING :LIMITED. VE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-integra as the same has been decided in catena of case laws. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) R.B. Chy Ruchi Ram Khattar & Sons vs. Commr of ST., New Delhi - 2015 (38) STR. 583 (Tri - Del) (b) Khurana Engineering Limited vs. Commr of C. Ex., Ahmedabad - 2011 (21) S.TR. 115 (Tri-Ahmd.) (c) Tax Appeal No.926 of 2011 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Versus Khurana Engineering Ltd. Order dated 14.09.2018 (d) Sh.DH. Patel and Sh. RN Dobariya vs. CCE & ST, Surat-2013 (10) TMI 815 -CESTAT, AHMEDABAD (e) Shri. S. Kadirvel vs. CCE & ST, Trichy vide Final Order No.41504/2018 dated 11.05.2018 (f) Brahma Developers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirune....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Sh. DH Patel and Sh. RN Dobariya vs. CCE, Surat (supra), this Tribunal passed the following order:- " .... ...... 3. The above said amounts are confirmed against the appellant on the ground that they have not discharged the service tax liability for the work undertaken by them for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (GSPHCL) during the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the dues on the ground that GSPHCL is Government of Gujarats public purpose vehicle or Company, hence ineligible to avail any exemption granted for any work which is done for or on behalf of Government. 5., 6. .... ..... 7. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned demand and connected penalties. It can be seen that the issue involved in the case in S Kadirvel vs. CCE. Tiruchirapalli as was before the South Zonal Bench, Chennai is the same, hence, respectively following view already taken by the bench, we hold that the appellant has made out a case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals." (b) Similarly in the case of Shri S. Kadirvel vs. CCE & ST, Trichy (supra) which was relied upon in above decision, the Chennai Bench passed the following order:- "5.1 The period involved is from 16.06.2005 to 31.08.2007. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to pay service tax in respect of the complex built for ITC. From the definition it is quite clear that if the complex is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for design or planning or layout and such complex is intended for personal use as per the definition, service tax is not attracted. Personal use has been defined as permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. In this case what emerges is that ITC intended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of 'personal use' in the explanation. The next question that arises is whether it gets excluded under the circumstances. The circular issued by C.B.E.&C. on 24....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax need not be paid by the builder/developer who has constructed the complex. If the builder/developer constructs the complex himself, there would be no liability of service tax at all. Further in this case it was different totally, the appellant, has engaged subcontractors and therefore rightly all the sub-contractors have paid the service tax. In such a situation in our opinion, there is no liability on the appellant to pay the service tax" The above definition specifically excludes construction undertaken for personal use and such personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person. We find that the above exclusion clause covers the construction activity undertaken by the assessee. Followi....