SMS Shelters (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & ST Coimbatore
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 951 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-12-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/255 – 257/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 43091-43093/2018
Service Tax
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate For the Appellant
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar
All these three appeals since involving identical disputes and relating to same appellant, they are taken up for common disposal.
2. In Appeal ST/255/2012, the construction activity undertaken by the appellant of apartment complex has been classified under the category of “Construction of Residential Complex Service” for the period April 2006 to March 2008 and service tax of Rs. 14,94,362/- with interest along with imposition of penalties have been demanded by adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals0 vide the impugned order.
5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Ms. D. Naveena submits that the issue involved in all these appeals is no longer res integra. She submits that the combined ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) and that of this Bench of the Tribunal's decision in Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT Chennai is that service liability in respect of composite contracts involving both provision of service and supply of materials would be exigible to service tax only under “Works Contracts Service”. She submits that this Bench of the Tribunal in Real Value Promoters (supra) in para-8 of the order has summarized and dealt with the issues as under :
“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:-
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
se 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.”
Ld. Advocate submits that the above ratio would be applicable to all these appeals on hand.
6. On the other hand, ld. A.R Ms. T. Usha Devi reiterates the impugned orders.
7. After hearing both sides, we find that Ld. Advocate is correct in her assertion and reliance on the case laws of L&T (supra) and Real Value Promoters (supra). The said case laws will indeed apply in full force in the facts of the appeals at hand
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =