https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425627 The tribunal held that the contracts executed by the appellant involved deemed sale of materials and were correctly classifiable as works contract service (WCS), not as construction services simpliciter under CICS. The appellant's argument that it could choose between CICS and WCS was rejected, as classification depends on the nature of the taxable event, not on the assessee's option. However, the demand was set aside as time barred: the show cause notice dated 30.09.2015 covered October 2010 to June 2012, beyond the normal limitation period, and there was no evidence of intent to evade tax. Consequently, the demand and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were quashed and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425627 The tribunal held that the contracts executed by the appellant involved deemed sale of materials and were correctly classifiable as works contract service (WCS), not as construction services simpliciter under CICS. The appellant's argument that it could choose between CICS and WCS was rejected, as classification depends on the nature of the taxable event, not on the assessee's option. However, the demand was set aside as time barred: the show cause notice dated 30.09.2015 covered October 2010 to June 2012, beyond the normal limitation period, and there was no evidence of intent to evade tax. Consequently, the demand and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were quashed and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425627