Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 371 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment/ short-payment of service tax - construction of residential and commercial complex services - composite contract. Demands made under category of CICS / CCS - HELD THAT:- The demands in these impugned orders which relate to composite contract will not be liable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 by virtue of the Apex Court judgement in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] and even for the period post-1.6.2017 as held in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - demand do not sustain. Demand made under MMRS - HELD THAT:- The amount received from buyers which would be passed on to the owner’s association formed, will not be consideration for any service - demand do not sustain. Demand made under RIPS - Period Post-01.06.2007 (June 2007 to March 2008) - HELD THAT:- Matter remanded to the original authority to substantiate their claim that they are entitled to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid by the owners of the property. Demands made under CICS / CCS - Period Post-01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- The demands relating to composite works contract along with interest for the period 2008-09 cannot sustain in view of this Bench decision in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and same will require to be set aside - Although there is an allegation that appellants have wrongly adjusted excess service tax paid, it has been clarified by the appellants that they have not adjusted any excess service tax paid by them, rather, they have not paid service tax on the amounts received during the period from May 2008 to March 2009 as these amounts have been appropriated towards cost of the land sold - The allegation of the department that irregular adjustment has been done by the appellants fails to convince us. Demands made under CICS / CCS - denial of abatement on the ground that the appellant had availed cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- The demands relating to composite works contract along with interest for the period 2009-10 to 2011-2012 cannot sustain in view of this Bench decision in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and same will require to be set aside. Demand relating to composite works contract along with interest - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid demands relating to composite works contract along with interest for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2007 cannot sustain in view of this Bench decision in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and same will require to be set aside. Demand ₹ 24,09,527/- with interest under MMRS on the amount collected as corpus fund - Period April 2007 - HELD THAT:- Such amount received from buyers which would be passed on to the owner’s association formed, will not be consideration for any service - demand do not sustain. Appeals disposed off.
|