TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on agreements entered into with their prospective buyers, that, in essence, they were rendering works contract service in the construction of flats and this aspect has not been denied by the Revenue either in the Show Cause Notices or in the impugned order. The CESTAT, Chennai Bench 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] has, following the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] , held that in respect of projects executed prior to 01.06.2007, being in the nature of composite wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. 2. Shri K.A. Parthasarathi, Learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Smt. K. Komathi, Learned Additional Commissioner, appeared for the respondent. 3.1 A perusal of the Show Cause Notices reveals that the Internal Audit Group of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai had conducted an audit of accounts of the appellant wherein they appeared to have noticed that the appellant had not been paying Service Tax under Construction of Complex Service ( CCS for short). A Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2010 came to be issued wherein it is observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of 128 flats in Rani Meyyammai Towers, Phase II which was started during November, 2006, through M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfied with the same, the impugned common Order-in-Original Nos. 10 11/2013 dated 19.06.2013 has been passed, wherein the demands proposed in the Show Cause Notices, inter alia, of Service Tax under CCS for the periods from February 2007 to June 2010 and July 2010 to March 2011, have been upheld. It is against this common Order-in-Original that the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 6. The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the demand confirmed under CCS in the impugned order does not survive as the same has been settled by the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. Cus., Kerala v. M/s. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)], which decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e buyers, that, in essence, they were rendering works contract service in the construction of flats and this aspect has not been denied by the Revenue either in the Show Cause Notices or in the impugned order. 10.1 The CESTAT, Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has, following the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra), held that in respect of projects executed prior to 01.06.2007, being in the nature of composite works contract, could not be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service and for the period post 01.06.2007, the liability to Service Tax could be fastened only if the activities were in the nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of residential complex service. (v) After 1-7-2010, Service Tax is chargeable under the head of construction of complex services if it is service simpliciter and under works contract service if it is a composite works contract. 11. From the above, the position of law is that there is no Service Tax liability as and when the construction of flat is for the personal use of the service recipient. Admittedly, in the case on hand, by virtue of agreements entered into by the appellant with the prospective buyers, which is reflected in the Show Cause Notice and which we have extracted at paragraph 3.1 (supra), it appears that there is no dispute that the construction of flats was for the service recipients per se. 12. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
