2026 (7) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri C.S. Srinivas, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri B. Subhas Chandra Bose, AR for the Respondent. ORDER PER : A.K. JYOTISHI M/s Sai Sirisha Abodes Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) are in appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.30.11.2012, whereby, demand of Rs.8,50,007/- has been confirmed. 2. The issue, in brief,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... c. Krishna Homes Vs CCE, Bhopal [2014 (34) STR 881 (Tri-Del)] 4. Further, he submits that since these residential complexes were meant for personal use and therefore, on this ground also beyond 01.07.2010, the demand would not sustain as held by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following case laws. a. Modi Ventures Vs CST, Hyderabad [Final Order No. 30882/2020 dt.03....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....view of catena of judgments by the Tribunal including judgments cited by the learned Advocate. Insofar as the period beyond 01.07.2010, it is obvious that these complexes were meant for personal use of the allottees of the flats under JNNURM Scheme. Therefore, it would not be covered within the ambit of the definition of WCS and on this count, the demand would not sustain. Further, even since it i....