TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice tax conducted certain investigations in Feb. 2007 by verifying the books of accounts of the appellant. On completion of verification, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover service tax from the appellant. Three such show cause notices have been issued covering the period 1.10.2004 to 30.09.2010. All the notices were decided by the common impugned order dated 23.05.2012. The Original Authority confirmed service tax liability of Rs. 8,49,40,642/-. Service tax already paid was appropriated. He imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Substantial demand of Rs. 8.02 crores are for the period 1.6.2007 to 13.09.2009 due to denial of Works Contract Scheme for payment of service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inable as the contract is liable to be taxed under Works Contract Service only w.e.f. 1.6.2007. Contesting the demand of Rs. 27.06 lakhs, for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.03.2008, it is submitted that no service tax is payable on the materials supplied. From 1.6.2007, correct tax has been paid by availing Composition Scheme for Construction Contract Service. The demand for the period prior to 1.6.2007, in any case, is liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). 4. Ld. Consultant submitted that the demand raised by show cause notice covering the period 1.10.2009 to 31.03.2010, there is no dispute on the tax liability of the appellant, which has been discharged under Works Contract Service. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction services should mean commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service as per the project. In our view, we find that the judicial pronouncements subsequent to the issue of the impugned order have direct application and relevance to decide the issue at hand. 9. First of all, we take into consideration the correct classification of the taxable service and effective date of tax liability on such service. We note that the services rendered by the appellant, which are subject to tax in the present proceedings, are of composite in nature involving transfer of goods as well as provision of service. The same is not in dispute. As such, the tax liability on such contracts will arise only w.e.f. 1.6.2007 as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)STR 321 (AP), we note that there is no tax liability on such work contract prior to 1.6.2007 as clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In such scenario, the tax liability fixed on an ongoing contract can arise only w.e.f. 1.6.2007 and the appellant can avail the composition scheme when such tax liability arises. 11. Regarding the penalties imposed on the demands raised for the period 1.10.2009 to 30.09.2010, we note that the allegation for this period is in continuation of the first show cause notice. The submission of the appellant is that they have discharged service tax liability under works contract service. There is no dispute with respect to service tax demand confirmed on these services. Consider....