R. Rajendran, Civil Engineering Contractor Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Tirunelveli
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1670 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/155\/2012 – Final Order No. 42323\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellant is a building contractor and was engaged in construction of residential complex service. It was noticed that they executed works contract pertaining to construction of police quarters and according to the depar<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n y is a composite contract and involves transfer of property of goods during the execution of contract and therefore for the period prior to 1.6.2007, levy cannot sustain as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" R. Rajendran, Civil Engineering Contractor Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise TirunelveliService Tax2018 (9) TMI 1670 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 29-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/155\/2012 – Final Order No. 42323\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. … Continue reading “R. Rajendran, Civil Engineering Contractor Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Tirunelveli”<\/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-14128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14128","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=14128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. In respect of the period after 1.6.2007, she submits that there is no liability to pay service tax since the entire construction is for the Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore is no commercial purpose involved in the construction. TNPHCL engages the appellant for construction of such quarters and the ownership of the house constructed vests with the Government of Tamil Nadu. TNPHCL being an extended arm of the Gov<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n