2018 (11) TMI 1466 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Commercial or industrial construction service – non-payment of service tax – case of appellant is that they fall under the category of works contract service involving execution of composite contracts and not liable to pay service tax – Held that:- 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. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are pure
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
– 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 ₹ 4,31,559/- along with interest and penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand under the category commercial or industrial construction service . In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand prior to 1.6.2007 and upheld the demand along with interest and penalties for the remaining period under works contract service. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the period involved in this appeal is prior to March 2009. He submitted that the entire demand is unsustainable as the acti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ract 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 construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are purely services and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1.6.2007, demand in respect of composite contracts would fall under works contract service only. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 7.8 On the contrary, being composite works contracts, they will necessarily fall within th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after. Our view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007. 7.11 The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus has tried to counter this contention by stating that works contract service is service / activity which would be of a general nature whereas th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
scribes 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 Act, the same activity as a composite works contract will require to be brought under section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (c). For both these categories for the definition of residential complex, the definition given in section 65(105)(91a) will have to be adopted as discussed above will have to be taken into account. 7.13 We find sustenance in arriving at this conclusion by a number of decisions of the Tribunal in which it has held as under:- a. In the case of Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Swadeshi Construction Company – 2018-TIOL-1096-CESTAT-DEL, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- 7. We note th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is eligible for abatement of 67% of the value of the goods is in itself the acceptance of the fact tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
amp; 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 . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r 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 be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. d. In the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise as reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1361, the Tribunal has held as under:- 5.1 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., (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. So ordered. 5.2 The Ld. Counsel has been at pains to point out that on-going projects which were only in the nature of works contract prior to 01.04.2007
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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. 8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying on the ratios of the case laws cited supra, we hold as under:- a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro (supra) upto 1.6.2007 b. For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of commercial
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =