2018 (6) TMI 1361 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Construction Services – demand of Service tax – for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005, under Construction services, and the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 under Commercial or Industrial construction Services – for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, under Works Contract – Held that:- The payment upto 01.06.2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 – SUPREME COURT] – 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.
–
For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is ₹ 26,88,611/ Held that:- The appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period – the demand of ₹ 26,88,611/- under works contrac
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 Construction services, and the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 under Commercial or Industrial construction Services (CICS); the total demand proposed for these two periods being ₹ 3,88,78,213/- with interest thereon. ii) For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, under Works Contract; demand proposed for this period being ₹ 26,88,611/-. In adjudication, vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2010, the adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of ₹ 4,07,86,869/- and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ady 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 also considering that the tax liability should be considered as discharged, the penalty imposed on the appellant may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, for Revenue Ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, supports the impugned order. He submits that appellant had been collecting service tax under works contract category itself even prior to 01.04.2008, hence the penalty imposed on the appellant is very much sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the fa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lity under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around ₹ 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ordered. 5.4 With regard to the penalties, the penal provisions will have a bearing only in respect of the demand for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 under works contract service. The appellants have sent number of letters to the department on this issue. It is also onl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =