This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
If applicant has no layout plan to examine the contentions that the activity carried out by them does not come under the purview of residential complex
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- M/s Avn Build Tech (P) Ltd Vs Cs (CESTAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All CESTAT, CESTAT Delhi
Ld. Counsel Shri Pahwa argues that the second category of work carried out with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon is exhibited by para 34 of the adjudication order at page 94. In this case, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor and tax liability has been discharged by the principal contractor. According to him such aspect remains undisputed by Revenue, in which no liability arose. But this is subject to scrutiny in the course of regular hearing.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-DB
Service Tax Stay Application No. S...
