TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial blocks were sold to customers by entering into individual agreements with flat owners/buyers. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant has rendered the services which are composite in nature i.e. comprises of both materials and services and paid state VAT in rendering works contract service. It is appellant s contention that for the period prior to 01.06.2007, the issue of levy of service tax on works contract service is covered by the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] . For the period from 01.06.2007 to September, 2010, the appellant has discharged service tax under the category of works contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of a builder or developer on the total collection for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.5.2007. Further, it is alleged that the appellant was registered under the category of Works Contract Service w.e.f. 01.06.2007 for those ongoing projects and did not discharge service tax under construction of complex service ; therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 18.05.2011 for recovery of service tax under the category of construction of complex service from 01.01.2006 to 30.9.2010 amounting to Rs. 10,33,49,937/- with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3.1 The ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had entered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earlier Circular issued by the Board dated 01.08.2006 and subsequent Circular dated 23.08.2007, Circular dated 29.01.2009 and Circular dated 10.02.2012 clarified that the builders/developers were not liable to pay service tax prior to 01.07.2010. 3.5 He has further submitted that pursuant to the audit conducted in their unit, an Audit Note was issued which was duly replied by the appellant denying audit objections. However, no show cause notice was issued to them thereafter. On 24.07.2009, the appellant had informed the department that they have been discharging service tax under works contract service and sought clarification from the department on the said issue. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax (Technical) clarified through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal for determination is: whether the appellant required to discharge service tax under the category of construction of complex service during the period January, 2006 to September, 2010. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant being a developer, under an agreement with M/s Amco Batteries Ltd, the land owner, constructed seven residential blocks itself and by engaging subcontractors. The flats/apartments in the said residential blocks were sold to customers by entering into individual agreements with flat owners/buyers. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant has rendered the services which are composite in nature i.e. comprises of both materials and services and paid state V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a service simpliciter. (iii) However, after 1-6-2007 but prior to 1-7-2010, whether it is a service simpliciter or a works contract, if the service is rendered prior to issue of completion certificate and transfer to the customer, it is not taxable being in the nature of self service. (iv) Further, whenever the service is rendered for completion or construction of a flat for personal use of the service recipient, no Service Tax is payable in view of the exclusion in the definition of residential complex service. (v) After 1-7-2010, Service Tax is chargeable under the head of construction of complex services if it is service simpliciter and under works contract service if it is a composite works contract. 7. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
