TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is ₹ 26,88,611/- - Held that:- The appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period - the demand of ₹ 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers - however, the interest liability if any will have to be discharged. Penalties - Held that:- It is also only on 1.04.2008, that the registration certificate had been amended to include works contract service as per the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 26,88,611/-. In adjudication, vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2010, the adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of ₹ 4,07,86,869/- and interest thereon and also imposed penalties of ₹ 6,00,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Act and ₹ 2000/- under Section 77 ibid. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, for the appelants, the Ld. Counse, Shri V. Shankarraman made the following submissions:- a) In view of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), the activities of the appellant were only execution of works contract, there cannot be any tax liability till 01.06.2007. b) For the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2008, the demand under constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd., (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. So ordered. 5.2 The Ld. Counsel has been at pains to point out that on-going projects which were only in the nature of works contract prior to 01.04.2007 cannot be brought under different category of Construction Services and CICS subsequently. We find merit in his arguments. The SCN has proposed demand of service tax liability only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., we are of the firm opinion that there cannot be any penalty imposed in the impugned order and therefore set aside the same. 6. The miscellaneous application seeking change of cause-title of the respondent is filed by the department due to change in jurisdiction and address of the respondent. The present jurisdiction and address of the respondent is as follows:- The Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the jurisdiction and address of the respondent is changed from CCE ST, Chennai-to The Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate. 7. Appeal dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
