2019 (4) TMI 1201 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules service not taxable under 'construction of complex' or 'works contract'

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the service provided by the appellants is not liable for service tax under 'construction of complex' ... Demand of service tax - construction of complex’ services - works contract service - HELD THAT:- The issue covered by the decision in the case of MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2008 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that construction of individual residential units are not subject to levy of service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Whether the service provided by the appellants is liable for service tax under 'construction of complex' services or 'works contract' service.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jodhpur, concerning the taxation of services provided by the appellants in the construction of MIG/LIG/row houses for the Rajasthan Housing Development Corporation. The adjudicating authority held that the service attracted service tax under 'construction of complex' services before 1.6.2007 and under 'works contract' service thereafter, confirming the demand with interest and penalty.The appellant's advocate argued that the issue had been settled by the decision in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. vs. CST, supported by subsequent decisions from the Tribunal. The Authorized Representative acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. decision but highlighted that the adjudicating authority had distinguished that decision in the present case.Upon reviewing the facts, the Tribunal found that the entire issue was indeed settled by the Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. decision and subsequent rulings, including cases such as As Sikarwar vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M/s K.D. Builders vs. CCE, and M/s Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST & ST. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in line with the precedent decisions, granting any consequential benefits to the appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Member (Technical) Mr. Bijay Kumar.