Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd Versus CCE & ST, Chennai (Presently known as CGST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate)
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 1361 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-6-2018
ST/MISC/41832/2017 & ST/111/2011 – Final Order No. 41873/2018
Service Tax
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate for the appellant
Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Per : Madhu Mohan Damodhar
The facts of the case are that the appellants are involved in construction activities. Pursuant to investigation conducted by the department, it appeared that the appellants had not paid the service tax liability in respect of the such services rendered. Accordingly, a SCN dated 09.04.2009 was issued to them, interalia proposing demand of tax liability under various categories for various periods as under:-
i) For the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005, under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2008, the demand under construction services and CICS cannot sustain since these services were only in the nature of works contract and the demand was made only under that category.
c) In respect of the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under Works Contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, they have already paid up around Rs. 82 lakhs under works contract category. Hence, the demand is required to be treated as having already been discharged.
d) Although they have taken due registration on 15.02.2008 under CICS, they had subsequently informed the department vide its letter dated 21.04.2008 that their activities would fall under the category of works contract only. Ld. Counsel also takes us to paragraph-5 of the SCN to point out that based on the application the service of “Works Contract” was also included in the registration certificate on 11.04.2008. The Ld. Counsel pleaded that in view of these on-going communication with the department and als
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ity only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the 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, al
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =