9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has not discharged appropriate service tax on the construction services provided by them a Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.2012 was issued for the period from October 2006 to March 2011 proposing to demand the service tax under Construction of Residential Complex Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services along with interest and for imposing penalty. 1.2 After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman appeared and argued for the appellant. The appellant received Show Cause Notice No. 185/2012 dated 20.04.2012 issued by the Commissioner seeking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide Order-in-Original No. 42/2014-ST (C) (Chennai) dated 16.05.2014 confirmed a demand of Rs.1,39,72,835/- after allowing cum tax benefit and imposed equal penalty in addition to a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.4 A perusal of the agreement would show that the contractor agrees to do and perform all concerned works with and incidental to the construction and completion of the flat and supply all materials, labourers and machineries necessary. This is nothing but a composite contract and therefore it would fall under the category of Works Contract. The classification adopted in the present by the Commissioner is therefore erroneous. 2.5 The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l complexes. One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that the units are less than 12 and therefore would not come within the definition of Residential Complex. The said argument was countered by the Ld. Authorised Representative by referring to paras 18.6 to 18.8 of the impugned order. It is submitted that in para 18.8, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that 'common area' is understood in the real estate industry and to mean the area which is available for use by more than one person. In the present case, there are areas which can be commonly used and therefore the contention raised by the appellant that the construction of residential projects does not fall under the taxable service of Construction of Residential Complex ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order that the appellant has carried out the construction services as a builder since the undivided share was also sold and thereafter constructions carried out. They have also carried out constructions for the landowner in exchange of the land value. All these would show that the appellant has acted as a builder / promoter / developer for residential projects. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the above cases would squarely apply and the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2010 under Construction of Residential Complex Services cannot sustain. The same is set aside. 7. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-2867CESTAT-MAD]. The said decision was followed by the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
