TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that ' Having found that the Service Tax was not at all leviable on service element of a works contract, Parliament felt the need for the amendment and was so incorporated by the Finance Act, 2007.'. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Mr. Akbar Basha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Saravana Perumal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER M/s. Vishal Infrastructure Limited, appellant is registered under the taxable services of Renting of Immovable Property Service and Works Contract Service . 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant is engaged in the construction of various buildings and structures including airports, Roads, runways, bridges, canals, dams, Commercial complexes, office/administrative buildings, etc. They have also entered into agreement with various departments of Ministry of Defence for construction of buildings, Residential complexes, canteens, etc. DGCI initiated investigation on the premise that appellant had failed to obtain registration, pay service tax for providing services of Renting of Immovable Property Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 to 31.05.2010. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of CC Bangalore Vs. Nithesh Estates Ltd (Reported in 2018 (17) GSTL 414 (Kar.) where it is held that :- 23. In our opinion, the Learned Tribunal was perfectly justified and correct in applying the Circular, dated 24.05.2010 also, while holding that if the Government of India Department could be treated as using the Residential Complex in question constructed by the NBCC for its personal use , how another corporate body like ITC Limited in the present case could be denied the benefit of that type of user of Residential Complex to be occupied by its Managerial Staff. The law does not envisage any such distinction among the Private Sector operated Entity and the Departments of Government or Government Companies or Undertakings. 7. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Sugandha Construction Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhopal 2018 (9) GSTL 399 (Tri. -Del.), wherein it is held that:- 2 . Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that with reference to Construction of Residential Complexes , the appellants have u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following judgments:- i. Delhi Jal Board Contractors Welfare Association Vs. Union of India 2019 (26) GSTL 180 (Del.) ii. Larsen Toubro Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata 2020 (32) GSTL 538 (Cal.) iii. Ircon International Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2017 (5) GSTL 221 (Tri.-Del) iv. Sugandha Construction Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhopal 2018 (9) GSTL 399 (Tri.-Del.) v. Khuran363.0a Engineering Ltd Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Ahmedabad 2011 (21) STR 115 (Tri.-Ahmd.) vi. Commissioner of C. Ex., ST Cus., Bangalore II Vs. - Nithesh Estates Ltd 2018 (17) GSTL 414 (Kar.) vii. URC Construction (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2017 (50) STR 147 (Tri.-Chennai) viii. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ludhiana Vs. Dr. Lal Path Lab (P) Ltd 2007 (8) STR 337 (P H) 9. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that as far as the demand for period prior to 01.06.2007, the issue is now covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CC Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd (2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). However, for the post 2007 period, the service provided by the appellant is a taxable service as held by adjudication au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the matter in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra), this Court held that Service Tax on works contract was not leviable, meaning thereby, that such tax on the service component of works contract as defined above did not attract Service Tax prior to the amendment. 25 . Further, in Commissioner of Service Tax and Others v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 782], this Court considered the correctness of the judgment of the Larger Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, CESTAT ) dated 6-9-2013 in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. v. CST [(2013) SCC OnLine CESTAT 1951]. In the said case, reliance was placed on Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) and it was held that when there was no levy of service tax on works contract, no question of any exemption would arise. It was further held that the Central Government is empowered to grant exemption from the levy of service tax either wholly or partially, only when there is any taxable service as defined in sub-clauses of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 and not otherwise. This Court agreed with the view taken by the Full Bench of the CESTAT in the judgment dated 6-9-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
