2025 (1) TMI 1551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Respondent Per: Shri P. Dinesha The period of dispute is 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. The undisputed fact is that the appellant is engaged in construction of complex services and during the year under dispute they had executed civil construction works for Tsunami District Implementation Unit (TDIU for short), which required the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t houses and not complex, hence activity would not be taxable under Section 65(105)(zzh) ibid. 2. Heard Sri S. Murugappan, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, ld. Asst. Commissioner for the Respondent. 3. Upon hearing both sides, we find that the only issue that survives for our consideration is, "whether the demand of service tax under 'Construction of Complex Servic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... antly clear from the above provisions that construction of residential complex having not more than 12 residential units is not to be taxed under Finance Act, 1994. For the levy, it should be a residential complex comprising more than 12 residential units. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had constructed individual residential houses, each being a residential unit, which fact is also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X