E. Basheer Ahamed Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1466 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Appeal No. ST/310/2012 – Final Order No. 42733/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a qualified engineer and had provided construction services to M/s. BSNL during the period 2005 – 06 to 2008 – 09 under the category of commercial or industrial construction service, which is a taxable service. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Central Excise officers that the appellant is not paying service tax under the said category, investigations were initiated against the appellant and show cause notice was issued proposing to recover service tax of Rs. 4,31,559/- along wi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
contract service whereas the show cause notice has proposed to demand under commercial or industrial construction service. He also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is June 2007 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under commercial or industrial construction service. The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and constructi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fication of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date.”
7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:-
“7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines “taxable service” as “any service provided”. A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
itted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial construction service'. It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
5. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under commercial or industrial construction service (residential complex) cannot sustain after the period 1.6.2007. The levy of service tax prior to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =