2024 (3) 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

.... Representative has mentioned that the said order was duly complied with. Infact, there was a request of adjournment received for 25th November, 2022 from the appellant subsequent to service of notice upon appellant. It was also made clear on 25.11.2022 that in case the appellant fails to appear on next date of hearing, the matter shall be decided on merits. These warnings were reiterated vide order dated 15th May, 2023. Ld. Departmental Representative has also mentioned that it has been verified that the appellant has not got any benefit under SVLDRS Scheme. In view of above observations, the fact that the matter still got adjourned for three more occasions and the fact that the appellant is not present even for today, the appeal is procee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e/Order-in-Original bearing No.22-15-16 dated 30th June, 2015. Being aggrieved the appellant had filed the present appeal but had failed to pursue the same. We observe that while filing the VCES the appellant has not included the value of following: 1) The amount of Rs. 48,59,600/- as has been received by them against construction of building of four educational Institutes. 2) The total amount of Rs. 4,11,59,366/- as involved in 18 to 19 agreements to construct residential houses. 3) The demand of service tax of an amount of Rs. 50,40,000/- paid as remuneration to the directors and service tax of an amount of Rs. 93,708/- of legal and professional expenses. 6. The demand of service tax for constructing educational institutes has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....struct individual residential houses for different person as named in the distinct agreement. There is nothing in agreement to suggest that these houses were the part and parcel of the same complex. Hence there is no evidence produced by the Department that these 18 agreements were 18 different residential units (more than 12 units) in a common area with several common facilities, as is the requirement in terms of section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994 which defines the residential complex. Once the construction does not qualify to be called as a residential complex, question of any services rendered for constructing the same to be taxable does not at all arises. Hence, the findings of the adjudicating authority below confirming the demand al....