2018 (7) TMI 1389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l ) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants were providing construction service under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and residential complex service. During the course of scrutiny of ST-3 returns, it was noticed by the department that even though they we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri M. Karthikeyan, ld. Counsel submitted that part of the period involved is prior to 1.6.2007 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) would be applicable and the demand of service tax prior to 1.6.2007 cannot sustain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has already discharged the service tax on the very same construction activities of these two complexes, the demand cannot sustain. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. He referred to Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated 29.1.2009 and argued that the appellant though a developer / promoter is the main contractor of the building and the contractor who ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....promoter which builds the residential complex using the services of a contractor is not liable to pay service tax and it is the contractor who is liable to pay. Undisputedly, the contractor has discharged the service tax on the construction activities. The demand is made against the appellant merely alleging that he is the main contractor and although the contractor has discharged the service tax,....