Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 620 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Dredging Services - Penalty - Held that:- In respect of dredging services It then appears to reason that not only are the two essentialities of the definition of ‘dredging’ under Section 65 (36a) of the Act namely, removal of material and such removal related to or while excavating, cleaning etc., required to be present in tandem, but also, such activity will require the use of a boat, ship etc. equipped with a dredger, or, at the very least, there has to be use of dredging apparatus for enabling the activity - While assessee has certainly performed the works of deepening, widening and construction of flood protection walls etc. using cement and steel, there are no attendant contracts to “dredge” From the facts and records there is also no narration that boats or ships equipped with dredgers or for that matter, any dredging apparatus or equipment was used by the assessees for clearing or deepening these water bodies - decided in favor of the assessee. Construction of residential complex - Held that:- The periods of demand in all these disputes related to construction of residential complexes for KHB etc. spans from 2005 to 2015. There are merit in the appellant’s contention that demands on this score prior to 1.6.2007 is liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CCE & CC Kerala Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - demand set aside. Demands for the periods subsequent to 1.6.2007 - Held that:- In a number of decisions, the higher appellate forums have consistently held that there is no liability to pay service tax for the reason that the complex so constructed are intended for personal use which is excluded in the definition of construction of residential complex - Even after the negative list regime w.e.f. 1.7.2012, higher appellate forums have consistently held that services provided by contractors to Housing Boards, Local Development Authority under JNNRUM etc. there could be no service tax liability since such houses etc. were meant for residential purpose, was within exemption under Notification No.25/2012- ST. Tax liability - CICS, MMR services etc. alleged to have been provided by the appellant - Held that:- The appellants had undertaken the construction as a composite contract and received payment from June 2005 to October 2005. This being so, in view of the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L&T Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. These services will have to be treated as works construction service which cannot be exigible to service tax levy prior to 1.6.2007 - demand set aside. Appeal allowed in toto - decided in favor of the assessee.
|