Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member - Heard both sides. The appellants under contract from the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (TNPHCL), which is a Tamil Nadu Government undertaking have constructed quarters for the Tamil Nadu police officials. Shri V.S. Manoj, Ld. Adv., appearing for the appellants states that as per the definition of the expression "residential complex" under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, it does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person. He, also refers to the explanation below the said definition which states that "Personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. He argues that in view of the above definition and explanation, the quarters constructed by the appellants for the TNPHCL for occupation by the police personnel does not attract service tax for construction of the residential complex.

2. Ld. Advocate states that this plea was taken by the appellants in a letter addressed to the Jr. Commissioner of Service Tax, a copy of which is at page 117 to page 124 of the appeal papers. However, we find that this letter does not bear a date nor is it signed. Further, we do not find that the adjudicating Commissioner has anywhere dealt with this plea, nor is it indicated in the impugned order that such a plea was taken. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the impugned quarters were constructed for the Tamil Nadu Police personnel under a contract from the TNPHCL, the plea taken for exemption of such quarters from the purview of the service tax on the basis of the definition of "residential complex" and explanation relating to "personal use" deserves to be considered. Hence, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we set aside the impugned orders and remand all the matters to the original authority for fresh decision. The appellants shall be given adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders.

3. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.