https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762294 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demands totaling Rs. 1,53,07,940/- and Rs. 3,29,637/-. The tribunal held that construction of villa framework constituted works contract services, not construction of residential complex services, following Supreme Court precedent in Larsen Toubro. Land value cannot be included in works contract valuation under Rule 2A as it falls under state levy jurisdiction. Construction of balance works qualified as original works under Rule 2A(ii)(A), not finishing services under Rule 2A(ii)(B). Cancellation charges retained by appellant did not constitute separate taxable services under Section 66E(e). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant properly disclosed activities in ST-3 returns, negating suppression allegations. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 19:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762294 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demands totaling Rs. 1,53,07,940/- and Rs. 3,29,637/-. The tribunal held that construction of villa framework constituted works contract services, not construction of residential complex services, following Supreme Court precedent in Larsen Toubro. Land value cannot be included in works contract valuation under Rule 2A as it falls under state levy jurisdiction. Construction of balance works qualified as original works under Rule 2A(ii)(A), not finishing services under Rule 2A(ii)(B). Cancellation charges retained by appellant did not constitute separate taxable services under Section 66E(e). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant properly disclosed activities in ST-3 returns, negating suppression allegations. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762294