TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai & Ors. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and after considering various decisions, it has been held that the demand will have to be made under Works Contract Service - the demand raised is not sustainable and hence set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: ST/00658/2012 - Final Order No. 40158/2019 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed. 2. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri. J. Shankar Raman appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ld. DC (AR) Ms. T. Usha Devi appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of lower authorities and have also gone through the judgements relied on during the course of arguments. 4. On a perusal of the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order-in-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service or Construction of Complex Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
