2018 (12) TMI 951 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Construction services – sub-contract – Construction of Residential Complex Service – demand of tax with interest and penalties – Held that:- The issue decided in the case of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that 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. For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, ‘Construction of Complex Service‟ under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of servi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 3. In Appeal ST/256/2012, appellants carried out construction activity on sub-contract basis for L&T during the period April 2008 to September 2008. Proceedings have been initiated against the appellants proposing demand of service tax of ₹ 15,44,978/- with interest as also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Service which was confirmed by original authority and upheld by the commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 4. In Appeal ST/257/2018, appellants were engaged in construction activity of residential complex on sub-contract basis for L&T during the period October 2008 to March 2009. Demand of service tax liability of ₹ 3,88,940/- under the category of construction of residential complex was proposed by a show cause notice and confirmed by the original authority with interest thereon and also imp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ular, 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 or industrial construction service under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, Construction of Complex Service under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services simpliciter. c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under Works Contract
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =