https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754432 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant's construction services were composite in nature involving both materials and services, not purely service contracts. Following precedent in Real Value Promoters case, demand under construction of residential/commercial/industrial construction service categories cannot sustain for composite contracts, which fall under works contract service only after 1-6-2007. Extended limitation period was not applicable as appellant had disclosed tax payments in ST-3 returns, negating suppression charges. The demand order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754432 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant's construction services were composite in nature involving both materials and services, not purely service contracts. Following precedent in Real Value Promoters case, demand under construction of residential/commercial/industrial construction service categories cannot sustain for composite contracts, which fall under works contract service only after 1-6-2007. Extended limitation period was not applicable as appellant had disclosed tax payments in ST-3 returns, negating suppression charges. The demand order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754432