TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of Works Contract for the period from March 2008 to September 2009 in respect of project namely, SIS Safaa and another Notice dated 06.04.2011 proposing to levy Service Tax under the category of Works Contract for SIS Safaa for the period from October 2009 to June 2010. Works Contract Service came under Service Tax levy with the introduction of section 65(105)(zzzza) in the Finance Act 1994 from 01/06/2007. The period covered under the demand for works contract as per the impugned order is post 01/06/2007 and hence the service rendered by the appellant is prima facie eligible for the levy of service tax - the co-ordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S KRISHNA HOMES VERSUS CCE, BHOPAL AND CCE, BHOPAL VERSUS M/S RAJ H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai against the Order-in-Original Nos. 115 116/2012 dated 30.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. 2. The allegations against the assessee are that they were engaged in the construction of residential complexes, which became taxable on 16.06.2005, but they have taken registration with the Department only during June 2008. They have also not filed periodical ST-3 returns. 3. It appeared to Revenue that the assessee did not pay appropriate Service Tax on the construction activity, under the classification Construction of Residential Complex Service . Hence Notices were issued to them vide Show Cause Notice No. 122/2011 dated 04.04.2011 demanding Service Tax of Rs. 2,64,33,866/- for the period from May 2006 to Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from May 2006 to September 2009 is barred by limitation since the Show Cause Notice is dated 04.04.2011 and none of the ingredients set out in the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 have been met. They have also been filing ST-3 returns and paying Service Tax wherever it was legally applicable. 5.4 She has placed reliance on the following decisions in their favour: - (i) M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai ors. [Final Order Nos. 42436-42438 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018 CESTAT, Chennai]. (ii) M/s. Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 257 (Tri. Chennai)]; (iii) M/s. Golden Ventures v. Commissioner of C.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir customers. One for sale of undivided share of land the other for the construction of flat / apartment. A sale deed is later entered into only for the undivided share of land and no sale deed is executed for the completely constructed flat. The stamp duty was paid only on the cost of undivided share of land and not on the complete constructed apartment. Thus the appellant undertakes construction service to their clients. We find that an element of service is present in the agreements is not disputed. The issue is whether the appellant has rendered pure service to his clients which would make the service taxable under Construction of Residential Complex Service as done by the impugned order. We find that the issue relating to the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that CICS and CCS, as defined under clauses (zzq) and (zzzh), respectively, of sub section (105) of the section 65 would cover only pure service contracts, without any transfer of property in goods. The co-ordinate Bench, in its order, after considering the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of CCE vs. Larsen Toubro (supra), have held that composite works contracts cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service up to 01/06/2007 i.e. till the works contract service was brought under the fold of service tax levy, and allowed the appeals with consequential benefit. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the Larsen and Toubro judgment had held that construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Residential Complex Service for the periods from May 2006 to September 2009 in respect of project namely, SIS Danube and under the category of Works Contract for the period from March 2008 to September 2009 in respect of project namely, SIS Safaa and another Notice dated 06.04.2011 proposing to levy Service Tax under the category of Works Contract for SIS Safaa for the period from October 2009 to June 2010. The issue of levy of service tax under Construction of Residential Complex Service pre and post 01/06/2007 has already been discussed above and held against Revenue and in favour of the appellant, hence levy in the impugned order under works contract from March 2008 to June 2010, alone needs to be examined now. 9. Works Contrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
