9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, they are taken together for decision. Appeal No. ST/55948/2013 is filed by M/s Padam Chand & Co., whereas the other appeal bearing Appeal No. ST/56332/2013 is filed by Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Padam Chand & Co. was engaged in Civil Construction of Residential Houses & Staff Colonies for various Sugar Mills such as; M/s Mankapur Chini Mills, M/s Akbarpur Chini Mills, M/s Haidergarh Chini Mills, M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (Manufacturers of Sugar) and also constructed Private House of Shri N. K. Khetan Ji. It appeared to Revenue that the said Civil Construction undertaken by M/s Padam Chand & Co., was Industrial Construction Service. Therefore, for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 a Show Cause Notice 21/04/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualify under the classification of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. They further submitted that construction of residence for personal use by Shri N. K. Khetan also did not qualify to be classified under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The matter was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original dated 20/11/2012. The Original Authority has held in Para 62, which is reproduced below:- "The Noticee were demanded Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,67,90,738/- on amount received by them from various sugar mills mainly for construction of flats/residential quarters for their staff. The Revenue has classified the construction of the flats under „Commercial or Industrial Construction Service‟. These resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chand & Co. He has submitted that the Original Authority has ordered them to deposit Rs. 13,71,473/- under the provisions of Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994, whereas there was no such proposal in the Show Cause Notice and the order has travelled beyond Show Cause Notice and therefore, such part of the order is not sustainable. The ld. Consultant also relied on the decision of this Tribunal‟s Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus Mall Enterprises reported at 2016 (41) S.T.R. 119 (Tri. - Mumbai). He has submitted that this Tribunal has held that if the Civil Construction is intended for personal use of such person for whom which is constructed then it does not qualify to be Construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be under „Commercial or Industrial Construction Service‟. Further, as held by this Tribunal in the above stated case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus Mall Enterprises - if the Civil Construction is intended for personal use of such person i.e. the owner of the property, then it does not get covered by definition of „Residential Complex Service‟. Therefore, we do not find any merit in both the grounds raised by Revenue to be sustainable. In result, we dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue.
7. To sum up, Appeal No. ST/56332/2013 filed by Revenue is rejected. Appeal No. ST/55948/2013 filed by the appellant - M/s Padam Chand & Co. is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
