Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 383 - AT - Service TaxCommercial or Industrial Construction Services - Sub-contractor - composite contract - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The period involved as per operative part of the order is from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2008. On perusal of records it is seen that the period involved as per the transactions in SCN is from 10.09.2004 to November, 2007. Demand under CICS for the period prior to 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the contracts are composite in nature which has been brought out from the evidences placed before us. Though cement and steel was supplied free, other goods viz-wood, sand, consumables were used for execution of the piling works. The appellant has paid VAT and filed VAT returns for the very same work orders for which certificate is issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. Further, a certificate issued by Chartered Accountant is also produced to show that apart from steel and cement other materials have also been used - On perusal of this certificate, it is found that the appellant has used consumables to the amount of ₹ 38,01,188/- in financial year 2004-05 and ₹ 26,62,871/- in 2005-06. There is also purchases of brick, wood and other items which have been used for executing the work orders. Thus, it is established that the contracts are composite in nature. The decision in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] would apply to the period prior to 01.06.2007 and therefore the demand cannot sustain. For the period after 01.06.2007 the decision of the Tribunal in the case of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] as followed in M/S. P. BALAKRISHNAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, TIRUNELVELI [2019 (3) TMI 955 - CESTAT CHENNAI] would assist the appellant - Applying these decisions, the entire demand cannot sustain. Thus, the demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|