Ceedeeyes Infrastructure Development Private Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai-South Commissionerate
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1434 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 18-12-2018
Appeal No. ST\/MISC\/CT\/41143\/2017, ST\/420\/2012, ST\/421\/2012 – FINAL ORDER No. 43144-43145\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nSh. M.A. Mudimannan, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nThe issue involved in both these appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed by this common order.
\n2. The appellants were issued show cause notices proposing to demand service tax unde<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Board's Circular in 2007. The show cause notices have been issued alleging that the services fall under Works Contract Services. However, after adjudication, the Commissioner has classified the services under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services. He submitted that the works executed by the appellants are in the nature of composite contracts which involved both supply of materials as well as renting of services. It is argued by him that since the works executed are in the nature of composite contracts after 1\/6\/2007, the said services rendered by the appellants would not fall under Construction of Residential Complex Services. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt Ltd. And others repor<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n est & Penalties) = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ceedeeyes Infrastructure Development Private Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai-South CommissionerateService Tax2019 (1) TMI 1434 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 18-12-2018Appeal No. ST\/MISC\/CT\/41143\/2017, ST\/420\/2012, ST\/421\/2012 – FINAL ORDER No. 43144-43145\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. M.A. Mudimannan, Advocate For the … Continue reading “Ceedeeyes Infrastructure Development Private Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai-South Commissionerate”<\/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-16384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16384","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=16384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nRs.2,11,52,669
\n6. At the foremost, it has to be mentioned that the appellant was discharging the service tax under Construction of Residential Complex. However, the show cause notice has been issued proposing to demand under Works Contract Services. After adjudication, the Commissioner held that the services are rightly classifiable under Construction of Residential Complex Services and confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice under Works Contract Service. The Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and such confirmation of demand on a different category of service is not sustainable. The department has not filed any appeal.
\n7. The issue whether composite contracts involving both<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n