https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450158 CESTAT Hyderabad held that construction/development works in four ventures should be classified under Works Contract Service (WCS) rather than Construction of Residential Complex Service (CRCS) post 01.06.2007, following SC precedent in Commissioner v. Larsen Toubro. For pre-01.06.2007 period, no WCS classification existed, making demand unsustainable. Post-01.06.2007, WCS was more specific classification under Section 65A. Despite WCS classification, no service tax liability existed for period prior to 01.07.2010 per Board Circular 151/2/2012-ST and tribunal precedent. Revenue's appeal dismissed. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:54:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450158 CESTAT Hyderabad held that construction/development works in four ventures should be classified under Works Contract Service (WCS) rather than Construction of Residential Complex Service (CRCS) post 01.06.2007, following SC precedent in Commissioner v. Larsen Toubro. For pre-01.06.2007 period, no WCS classification existed, making demand unsustainable. Post-01.06.2007, WCS was more specific classification under Section 65A. Despite WCS classification, no service tax liability existed for period prior to 01.07.2010 per Board Circular 151/2/2012-ST and tribunal precedent. Revenue's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450158