Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1805 - AT - Service TaxConstruction of Residential Complex Service - composite contract - benefit of N/N. 12/03-ST dated 20.06.2003, as amended by N/N. 12/04-ST dated 10.09.2004 - benefit denied by the department on the ground that the appellant had availed cenvat credit in respect of the goods sold during the disputed period - HELD THAT:- Supply of goods for execution of the construction activity was not in disputed in the case in hand inasmuch as such fact has also been acknowledged in the impugned order dated 31.08.2009. Thus, the construction activity undertaken by the appellant was a composite one, involving both supply/sale of goods and for execution of the assigned task of accomplishing the purpose of the contract. Since by nature, it was a composite contract, the appropriate head of classification of taxable service would be Works Contract Service, leviable to service tax w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The 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] have ruled that irrespective of the classification of service, if any service involves both provision of service and for supply of goods, then the same should be considered as composite service and will be eligible to service tax under the taxable category of Works Contract Service and not otherwise. In view of the well settled position of law that the composite contract, involving both execution of the job and for supply of material for achieving such object, should appropriately be classifiable under Works Contract Service and not under any of the other defined category of service. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|