TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Radhika Chandrashekar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) PER : Mathew John The applicants are engaged in the business of construction of individual residential villas in a gated compound. The issue in dispute here is whether this construction activity is in respect of residential complex as defined at section 65 (91a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said definition is reproduced as under:- 'Residential complex' means any complex comprising of - (i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units. (ii) a common area; and (iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered in stay petition of the same applicant in Appeal No.ST/227/2011 and vide Stay Order No.786/11 dt. 20.10.2011 and they were asked to pre-deposit 20% of the service tax demand. However, she submits that this issue was examined by the Tribunal in the case of LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai - 2013 (30) STR 33 (Tri.-Chennai) and it was decided that where each of the buildings is not having more than 12 units, the construction activity will not be covered by the said entry. She further submits that they are in a position to demonstrate that separate approvals were taken for each of the house from the municipal authorities and commons roads were surrendered to the local panchayat. She submits that these evidences were placed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there were no common facilities like sewage treatment plant, water treatment plant, swimming pool, gymnasium, club house, health club, party hall etc. and those flats were not constructed as a common project whereas in this case the entire project was constructed by the applicant as a common project. He also relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shri Ranga Rao Vs CCE Coimbatore in Appeal No.ST/148/11 wherein vide Stay Order No.824/12 dt. 10.12.12, predeposit of about 30% was called for and also Tribunal's earlier decision in respect of the same assessee as reported at 2012 (25) STR 465 (Tri.-Chennai). 5. Considered the submissions on both sides. We find that this is very highly contentious issue as already recorded in para-6 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
