TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e engagement of the contract directly by RSRDC to be covered under the exclusion clause in Section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994. The Daramsala construction prima facie also cannot be taken out of the CICS because the facility of Dharamsala was not free of cost. Regarding the construction of the building for KHTPL which was used for administration/ staff welfare, training centre, canteen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which service tax demand of ₹ 1,28,99,460/- was confirmed for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012 alongwith interest and penalties. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant argues that:- (i) The demand relating to construction of quarters is not sustainable as those were for personal use of staff of RSRDC. (ii) The construction of Daramshala was not for the commercial purpose and so wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose etc. and therefore its construction cannot be outside the scope of CICS. (iii) Regarding KHTPL he said that the company was only for commerce and therefore the building constructed by it was covered under CICS. 3. Heard both sides. 4. We find that the staff quarters were made by the appellant as sub-contractor engaged by a contractor and therefore the exclusion clause does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view the appellant s contention that the demand is time barred, we are of the view that a pre-deposit of ₹ 10.00 Lakhs within 6 weeks will meet the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and we order accordingly. Compliance is to be reported by 09.08.2016. Subject to such compliance, recovery of the remaining impugned liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
