2017 (12) TMI 1440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 266 days. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the order dt. 15/03/2016 was received by them on 22/03/2016. However the appeal could not be filed within time since the partner, Shri C. Raghavan, was suffering from serious heart ailment and was under treatment during the period May 2016 till January 2017. The learned counsel also prayed that there was a change of counsel because of which also appeal could not be filed in time. For the reasons mentioned in the COD application, we are of the view that this is a case where delay can be condoned and appeal can be taken up on merit. 3. After condoning the delay, with the consent of both the parties, we take up the appeal itself on merit. 4. The appellant is engaged in the activi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt wherein the services rendered by the appellant have been declared as works contract services. Accordingly the allegation of substantial misdeclaration has been made against the appellant and the benefit of abatement denied to them resulting in the present demand for differential service tax. The learned counsel further submitted that the definition of works contract service under the Finance Act 1994 as well as the respective State Government Act are different and the services rendered by them would be rightly classifiable under the construction of complex services under Financial Act, 1994 since the consideration received by the appellant also includes the cost of the undivided share of the land transferred after construction of the apa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9. After going through the records, we note that the total amount of consideration received by the appellant has not been found to be any different from what was declared. The adjudicating authority has only taken a different view on the classification of the services rendered by the appellant. The appellant had declared the same under construction of complex service but the same was held to be classifiable under works contract service. The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) was framed by the Government with the intention of encouraging voluntary compliance and payment of service tax. The declarations made under such scheme were to be accepted, by and large. However the power was given to the jurisdictional Co....