M\/s. Navin Housing & Properties (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1515 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-6-2018
Application No. ST\/Misc\/41495\/2017 Appeal No. ST\/175\/2011 – Final Order No. 41875\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe MA filed by department for change of cause title is allowed.
\n2. The appellants are engaged in construction of residential complex and was registered with the Service Tax Department. On specific in<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s which includes the cost of entire construction. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Navin Housing & Properties (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, ChennaiService Tax2018 (8) TMI 1515 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 26-6-2018Application No. ST\/Misc\/41495\/2017 Appeal No. ST\/175\/2011 – Final Order No. 41875\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Navin Housing & Properties (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13409\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. After hearing both sides, we find that the period involved in the case is from June 2005 to April 2006. That the issue being a works contract whether subject to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 has been settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 390 (SC). We also note that the coordinate Bench in the case of CCL Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur – 2017 (48) STR 50 (Tri. – Hyd.), in a similar matter had set aside the demand relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on identical set of facts.
\n4. Following the same, we hold that the demand is unsustaina<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n