9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under various provisions of law. (ii) SCN No.597/2009 dt. 23.10.2009, for the period 2008-09, proposing total demand of Rs,5,91,38,314/- as per the four annexures to the SCN along with interest as also imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. (iii) In adjudication of both the SCNs, the Commissioner vide a common Order-in-Original No.53 & 54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 confirmed the aforesaid demands along with interest and imposed penalty Section 78 in respect of SCN dt. 24.06.2009 and penalty under Section 76 in respect of SCN dt. 23.10.2009. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 ibid. Hence Appeals ST/258/2012 & ST/259/2012. 2.2 When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan submitted that most of the demands confirmed in the aforesaid impugned order to these appeals now stands covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) and of the Tribunal decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE - 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT. 2.3 Ld. Advocate's contentions in respect of the item wise / annexure wise demands that were confirmed in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rs. i. 597/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 2008-09 Demand under CICS 59,08,138 ii. -do- -do- Demand under CCS 1,06,22,800 iii. -do- -do- Demand under CICS 7,39,011 iv. -do- -do- Demand under CCS 3,45,27,514 v. -do- -do- Alleged adjustment of excess service tax paid, which is not permissible. 61,04,851 Total 5,79,02,314/- He submits that aforesaid demands raised vide Sl.No. (i) to (v) under the category of CICS / CCS are for the period pre-1.6.2007 and post-1.6.2007, hence the issue stands squarely covered by Apex Court decision in L & T Ltd. (supra) and this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He prays that following the ratio already laid down in these decisions, Appeal ST/259/2012 may be allowed. 2.5 So also in Appeal ST/40901/2014, the details of SCN, period of dispute, disputed amounts etc. as furnished by Ld. Advocate are tabulated as under : S.NO. SCN NO & DATE PERIOD DETAILS OF DEMAND OIO AMOUNT CONFIRMED 1 124/2013 Dt. 20.04.2013 April 2009 to March 2012 Annexure I to SCN - Demand of ST under CICS - Service provided to landowners - Prince Infocity II, Kottivakkam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned in Sl.No.1 to 5, 8 are in respect of CICS / CCS are for the period post-1.6.2007, hence the issue stands squarely covered by this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He prays that following the ratio already laid down in these decisions, Appeal ST/40901/2014 may be allowed on these issues for the said demands. 2.7 Counsel submits that demand in respect of Sl.No.6 is not disputed by appellant and paid by them. However, interest amount in respect of Sl.No.6 (Rs. 57,41,432) and Sl.No.7 (Rs. 33,54,564) relates to calculation of interest for the delayed payment of service tax which needs verification by lower authority. Sl.No.9 (Rs. 2,01,305/-) also requires remand as the demand is not clearly mentioned. Hence he prays for remand of the matter on the issue of interest liability of these amounts. 2.8 As regards Sl.No.10 (Rs. 16,19,255/-) pertaining to reimbursable expenses collected from tenants for electricity, water, diesel etc., he placed reliance on Apex Court's judgment in UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). 2.9 As regards demand amount of Rs. 11,57,494/- shown in Sl.No.11 above, they are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for service. He relies on the following case laws : (i) Vijayashanti Builders Ltd. Vs CST - 2018 (9) GSTL 257 (Tri-Chennai) (ii) Kumar Beheray Rathi Vs CST - 2014 (34) STR 139 (Tri.-Bom.) (iii) CCE Vs Sri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises - 2018 (14) GSTL 533 (Bom.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri A. Cletus supports the impugned orders. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 We intend to take the issues appeal wise. 5.2 Demands made under category of CICS / CCS : (i) Appeal ST/258/2012 Demand Rs. 94,62,842/- under CICS on composite contract with interest SCN No.256/2009 dt. 24.06.2009 Impugned Order-in-Original No. 53/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Thoraipakkam STP, Ambattur STP and PGW (ii) Appeal ST/258/2012 Demand: Rs. 5,18,152/- on alleged short payment of service tax in respect of building sold to Mr. Hariharan Padmanabhan - Project "Prince Infocity" with interest Impugned OIO No.53/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion 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 virt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1994 are set aside. 5.5 Demands made under CICS / CCS: (i) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 59,08,138/- under CICS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned Order-in-Original No. 54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Shrotrium Project, Kottivakkam (ii) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 1,06,22,800/- CCS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned OIO No.54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Sriperumbudur Project (iii) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 7,39,011 under CICS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned OIO No.54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Kottivakkam Project (iv) Appeal ST/259/2012 Demand Rs. 3,45,27,514/- under CCS with interest SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned OIO No.54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 Project: Residential Construction (v) Appeal ST/259/2012 Rs. 61,04,851/- short paid amount towards adjustment of excess ST Paid -demand under CICS. SCN No.257/2009 dt. 23.10.2009 Impugned OIO No.54/2011 dt. 25.11.2011 Period: Post-01.06.2007 As already held above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rince Info City-II [builders share] (v) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 77,28,508/- with interest under CICS (short payment) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: Oct 2011 to March 2012 Project: Prince Residenzia (v) Appeal No.ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 43,49,793/- with interest under CCS (short payment) SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: April 2009 to August 2011 Project: Prince Garden Woods Project In respect of the above demands, the appellants have come in Appeal against denial of abatement on the ground that the appellant had availed cenvat credit. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, demands relating to composite works contract along with interest in respect of Appeal ST/40901/2014 for the period 2009-10 to 2011-2012 cannot sustain in view of this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters (supra) and same will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. In the result, that portion of the impugned order confirming the above demands with interest in respect of Appeal ST/40901/2014 will not sustain and will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Counsel has placed reliance in UOI Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). From the facts on record, it is evident that these amounts have been reimbursed by the clients and hence the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats (supra) would apply in all fours to the issue at hand. The said demand cannot then survive and is set aside in toto. Appeal ST/40901/2014 is allowed on this issue with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (ii) Appeal ST/40901/2014 Demand Rs. 2,01,305/- short payment under RIPS SCN No.124/2013 dt. 20.04.2013 Impugned OIO No.1/2014 dt. 04.02.2014 Period: July 2011 & November 2011 This demand has been raised under RIPS on the ground that certain amounts received from the tenants are not included for the payment of service tax. Ld. Advocate has contended that grounds for this demand is not clear. However, from para-6 of the SCN No.124/2013 dt.20.4.2013 (page 9), raison d'etre of the said demand has been amplified and it has been clearly mentioned that demand relates to short payment of service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service (RIPS) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 Period : October 2005 to December 2005. Project : KSTP Project (v) Appeal ST/1/2012 Demand : Rs. 1,07,419 short payment of interest. SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 (vi) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 33,75,598/- with interest under CCS service provided to landowners under joint agreement. SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Project : Kandanchavadi Project (vii) Appeal No.ST/1/2012 Demand Rs. 10,11,386/- with interest under CCS SCN No.148/2007 dt. 23.08.2007 read with corrigendum dt. 4.1.2008 OIO No.23/2011 dt. 26.08.2011 Period : April 2007 Project : Prince Green Wood As already held above, the aforesaid demands relating to composite works contract along with interest in respect of Appeal ST/1/2012 for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2007 cannot sustain in view of this Bench decision in Real Value Promoters (supra) and same will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. In the result, that portion of the impugned order confirming the above demands in respect of Appeal ST/1/2012 will not sustain and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
