TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No. 108/2009, read with Circular No. 151/2012, wherein, in view of the amendment brought in the definition of Construction of Residential Complex service , whereby explanation was inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2010, and builders were first time brought into the ambit of service tax. Further, it was clarified by the aforementioned Circulars, in view of the Finance Act, 2010 that builder/ developer of residential complex, is not liable to pay service tax for the period prior to 01.07.2010. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant. - HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. A. K. JYOTISHI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Ms Radhika Sriranjani , Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest and penalty too. The Appellant objected to the proposals on the following grounds: (i) In a joint Development Agreement, there is no service provider-service recipient relationship, and hence, there is no question of service tax. (ii) The land owner who received the constructed area, is only the consideration for the land. (iii) What is being transferred is only the development rights and therefore, there is no service. (iv) There is no liability as per the Circular No. 108/2009 dt.29.01.2009. (v) Once there is no liability, there is no question of interest and penalty. 5. The SCN was confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner vide OIO dated 31.01.2012, relying on the ruling of the Hon ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018] (d) URC Construction Ltd [Final Order No. 42037-42038/2016 dt.14.07.2016] (e) CCE C, Kerala vs Larsen Toubro Ltd [2015 (39) STR 913] (f) Ashoka Developers and Builders Ltd vs CCCE ST, Hyderabad [2020 (34) GSTL 550 (Tri-Hyd)] (g) Aditya Homes vs CCE, Hyderabad [2019 (9) TMI 793 (CESTAT-Hyd) (h) South India Shelters Pvt Ltd vs CCE [Final Order No. 40123-40124/2013] (i) Jain Housing and Construction Ltd vs CST [Final Order No. 40077- 40079/2023] (j) Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd vs CST [2018 (9) GSTL 257] 8. Learned Counsel also points out that ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Faqir Chand Gulati (cited supra) is not applicable, as the same was in respect of a consumer dispute under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
