Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 866 - AT - Service TaxValuation - inclusion of value of free supply of steels/cement was not being included by them in their gross amount charged for payment of service tax - benefit of N/N. 15/2004-ST dated 10/09/2004 and 01/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled in favor of the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal in case of M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI & OTHERS. [ 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) ] where it was held that Value of free supplies by service recipient do not comprise the gross amount charged under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, including the Explanation thereto as introduced by Notification No. 4/2005-ST. - demand set aside. Construction building for Jaipur National University and Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that they are the educational institute recognized by the Government and is also charitable institute for health care services. Thus, the appellants have rightly placed reliance on the CBEC Circular dated 17/09/2004 which exempted the institute established for educational, religious charitable and philanthropic purposes - Reliance placed in the case of Banna Ram Choudhary vs. CCE [ 2017 (9) TMI 86 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] - demand set aside. Construction of individual houses - HELD THAT:- These houses have been built by the individuals, namely, Shri C Sharma, Uttam Chan Jain, Dr. Hemawati Gupta (Bansal) etc., for their personal use which is clearly excluded from the definition of Construction of Residential Complex Service under the Act - Reliance placed in the case of Macro Marvel Project Ltd. vs CCE [ 2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] - demand set aside. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was under bonafide belief of non levy of service tax under the Act, as per the CBEC Circular dated 17/09/2004. There was no malafide intention to evade the payment of tax and hence the extended period is not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|