M\/s. Bismi Engineering Contractors, M\/s. Arasan Amutham Constructions, M\/s. Chendur Construction Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 836 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 30-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/440 to 442\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 40195-40197\/2019
Service Tax
Judicial Member : Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. And Technical Member: Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar
\nFor Appellant : Ms. D.S. Vipula, Advocate
\nFor Respondent: Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nAll these appeals involve identical issue and hence they are taken up together for disposal.
\n2. The common facts in all these appeals are that the appellants were engaged by Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corp<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Bismi Engineering Contractors, M\/s. Arasan Amutham Constructions, M\/s. Chendur Construction Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, MaduraiService Tax2019 (2) TMI 836 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 30-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/440 to 442\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 40195-40197\/2019Service TaxJudicial Member : Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. And Technical Member: Shri Madhu Mohan … Continue reading “M\/s. Bismi Engineering Contractors, M\/s. Arasan Amutham Constructions, M\/s. Chendur Construction Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai”<\/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-16786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16786","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=16786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nService Tax Demand
\nBismi Engineering Contractors
\n48\/2010-ST dated 19.10.2010
\nNo. 043-11\/dated 31.10.2011
\nRs.21,62,590\/-
\nChendur Construction Company
\n50\/2010-ST dated 19.10.2010
\nNo. 0436-11\/dated 31.10.2011
\nRs.42,50,834\/-
\nArasan Amuthan Construction
\n173\/2010-ST dated 23.11.2010
\nNo. 172-11\/ dated 5.12.2011
\nRs.13,03,444\/-
\n3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Ida counsel Ms. D.S. Vipula submitted that the issue is no longer res integra. She relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in Nithesh Estates Ltd. which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as reported in 2018 (17) GSTL 414 (Kara). She further submits that the Tribunal in Sima Engg. Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy – 201<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n