TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that in the impugned order dated 28th July 2015 the CESTAT has set out only three contentions of the Appellant. The CESTAT has, however, not noted that inasmuch as the service tax demand is for a period subsequent to 2007, the demand under the head 'construction service' was in contravention of the circular dated 24th August, 2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that the activity had to be treated as a works contract. It is pointed out that the above jurisdictional issue of the exigibility of the works contract executed by the Petitioner to service tax by wrongly classifying it as 'construction service', despite having been specifically urged by the Appellant before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and perused the earlier orders dated 09/7/2015 and 09/2/2016 passed by CESTAT in this regard. As regards the distinction to be drawn between of value of the goods supplied as works contract and the value of service rendered for the purpose of service tax, we find that this was considered in para 3 of the stay order dated 28/7/2015, a part of which is reproduced below:- "3. As regards the contention of the appellant that the service rendered by it fell under works contract service, we would like to observe at this interlocutory stage that even CICS is a limb of works contract service and the service tax liability under the composition scheme under works contract service and with 67% abatement under CICS is approximately the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above order, the appellant's contention that since services rendered by it fell under works contract service but proceeding were initiated under commercial or industrial construction service , the order was unsustainable was considered. It was clearly observed that since commercial or industrial construction service is a also a component of works contract service, defined and enumerated in Section 65 (105) (zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, the claim of the appellant for immunity to service tax, is misconceived. Benefits of the Larger Bench ruling in Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. and others vs. C.S.T., Delhi and others - 2013 - TIOL -1331 - CESTAT - DEL-LB was given apart from abatement available under The Works Contract Composition scheme, ....