1. The Appellant Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 purportedly raising the substantial questions of law about the Levy of Service Tax on the ‘Residential Complex’ constructed by the Respondent Assessee, M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited for the Company, M/s. ITC Limited at Bangalore, the Contract of construction for which was given in turn by Respondent – Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited to M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (M/s. L & T Ltd.).

2. The suggested substantial questions of law as framed by the Revenue in the Memorandum of Appeal are quoted below for ready reference:-

“1. Whether the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the “Residential Complex” constructed by the assessee falls within the meaning of “personal use” under Sec.65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore not liable to pay service tax?

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the activity of the assessee is covered by Circular dated 24-05-2010 issued by CBEC and therefore not liable to pay service tax?

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the demands made in Show Cause Notice dated 08-07-2009 do not fall within the extended period of limitation prescribed under Sec.73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994?”

3. The learned Tribunal, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CSTAT) by its impugned Order dated 16/07/2015 held in favour of the Respondent Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited while allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited that the Respondent Assessee was not liable to pay any Service Tax on the said construction activity as the said construction activity fell within the Exclusion Clause of the definition of ‘Residential Complex’ as defined in Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal also relied upon the Circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi dated 24/05/2010 which was extracted in its Order and which indicated that the ‘Residential Complex’ constructed for Central Government, Ministry of Urban Development Department which engaged National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC) for such construction would not be exigible to Service Tax as NBCC provides service to the Government of India for its personal use. It was also clarified in the same Circular dated 24/05/2010 that the main contract of NBCC where it engages the services of particular Contractors for carrying out full or part of the construction then such subcontractor would be liable to pay Service Tax as in that case, the NBCC would be the Service Receiver and construction would not be for their personal use.

The relevant extract of the Order dated 16/07/2015 passed by the learned CESTAT is quoted below for ready reference:

“7.1. In this case there is no dispute and it clearly emerges that the residential complex was built for M/s. ITC Ltd. and appellant was the main contractor. Appellant had appointed subcontractors all of whom have paid the tax as required under the law. The question that arises is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the complex built for ITC. From the definition it is quite clear that if the complex is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for design or planning o layout and such complex is intended for personal use as per the definition, service tax is nor attracted. Personal use had been defined as permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. In this case what emerges is that ITC intended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of ‘personal use’ in the explanation. The next question that arises is whether it gets excluded under the circumstances. The circular issued by CBEC on 24.05.2010 relied upon by the learned counsel is relevant. Para 3 of this circular which is relevant is reproduced below:

“3. As per the information