TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/S KRISHNA HOMES VERSUS CCE, BHOPAL AND CCE, BHOPAL VERSUS M/S RAJ HOMES [ 2014 (3) TMI 694 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . In the said decision, the Tribunal examined the amendment made to the Finance Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. LARSEN TOUBRO LIMITED ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA ANOTHER [ 2013 (9) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent : Shri T.K.Sikdar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER RAJU This appeal has been filed by M/s. Sun Builders against confirmation of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that appellant had constructed residential and Commercial Shopping complex. During the period of construction they obtained certain amounts from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the entire demand in the impugned order relates to period prior to 01.07.2010 and consequently, the demand and penalty should be set-aside. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue involved is identical to the issue involved in the case of Krishna Homes (supra). In the said decision, the Tribunal examined the amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be treated as works contracts, it has to be held that during the period of dispute, there was no intention of the Government to tax the activity in terms of such contracts a builder/developer with prospective customers for construction of residential units in a residential complex. Such works contracts involving transfer of immovable property were brought within the purview of taxable service by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
