TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of residential complex’ or not? - Held that: - Reference can be made to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Mall Enterprises [2015 (11) TMI 333 - CESTAT MUMBAI] as also to the decision in the case of Nithesh Estates Ltd. vs. CCE & ST & Cus., Bangalore [2015 (11) TMI 219 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that From the definition it is quite cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g both sides duly represented by Shri Sanjay Jain, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue and Shri A K Batra, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, we find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the activity of construction of residential complex by the respondent, in terms of agreement entered into with M/s. Jindal Power Ltd, for the occup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the no concern or consequence to the department. The Noticee have ably agitated their issue in this regard by citing the case of M/s. VMT Spinning Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings, Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, New Delhi, wherein it was held:- Provision of buildings for housing, schooling, recreation etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Spinning Company Ltd. vs. CCE Chandigarh. Reference can be made to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Mall Enterprises as reported in [2016 (41) STR 119 (Tri-Mumbai)] as also to the decision in the case of Nithesh Estates Ltd. vs. CCE ST Cus., Bangalore [2015 (40) STR 815]. 5. Inasmuch as the issue stands covered, we find no reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
