TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the matter are that M/s.Sreevatsa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are holders of service tax registration under Construction of Residential Complex Service. They were paying service tax under this category from 16.06.2005, however stopped doing so from 01.08.2006 considering the activities to be "Works Contract" based on CBEC circular dt. 1.8.2006. Assessee resumed payment of service tax under works contract w.e.f. 1.6.2007 availing the benefit of reduced liability under Works Contract (compensation scheme for payment of service tax) Rules, 2007. It however appeared to the department that - (i) For the period 1.8.2006 to 31.03.2009, asssessee is required to discharge service tax liability under "Constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O No.: 14/2011 Commr dtd. 16.8.2011 SCN: C No V/CRC/15/11/2009 STC (ADJ) dated 23.10.2009 01.8.2006 to 31.3.2009 Construction of (Residential) Complex Service - Sec. 65(105)(zzzh) 12,47,18,238/- 72,34,120/- Rs.12,47,18,238/- - u/s 78, Rs.4000/- - u/s 77 up to 31.3.2008, Rs.5000/- - u/s 77 - From 30.9.2008 to 31.3.2009, Rs.72,34,120/- u/r 15 (4) of CCR, 2. ST/41497/ 2013 O-I-O No.: 5/2013 Commr dtd. 29.3.2013 SCN No. 30/2010, C No. V/CRCS/15/88/2010 -ST (ADJN) dtd. 20.10.2010 and Corrigendum dated 28.1.2013 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 Works Contract Service 69,51,485/- Nil Rs.69,51,485/- u/s 78, Rs.5000/- under Section 77 3. ST/41625/ 2013 O-I-O No.: 7/2013Commr dtd. 29.04.2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE & Cus, Kerala Vs L&T Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). ii) For the period from 1.6.2007 and up to 1.7.2010 also, the assessee as promoters / builders would not be liable to service tax levy since Explanation to Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of "Construction of Residential Complex" was added only from that date. Hence service tax would not be attracted in respect of assessee till 1.7.2010. Assesssee has discharged service tax liability even for this period, namely 1.6.2007 to 1.7.2010 under works contract. iii) Although they were not required to discharge service tax liability during 1.6.2007 to 1.7.2010 they have nonetheless paid service tax under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is to be discharged as a works contract service has denied the benefit of compensation scheme on the ground that appellant has exercise the option under that scheme "only after the due date for payment of tax". Ld. Advocate takes us to the Works Contract (Compensation Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 in page 83 of the compilation submitted by him to point out that the option to discharge tax liability under that scheme, is required to be exercised only prior to payment as provided in Rule 3 (3) thereof and that there is no such requirement that option has to be exercised before the due date of payment of tax liability. Ld. Advocate relies on the ratio of Mehta Plast Corporation Vs CCE Jaipur - 2016 (44) STR 651 (Tri.-Del.) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dt.10.02.2012 reiterating its earlier circular of 29.01.2009 has clarified that for the period 1.7.2010 such services provided by the builders / developers will not be taxable. This is also the ratio laid down in the Tribunal decisions cited supra by the Ld. Advocate. In the event we find in favour of the assessee on the issue of taxability of the services prior to 1.7.2010 and hold that they would not be liable for service tax before that date.. Appeals of the assesssee on this score succeed. So ordered. 5.3 For the period w.e.f. 1.7.2010, the Explanation to Section 65 (zzzh) ibid has expanded and amplified the scope of that category to rope in builders / promoters, also subject to certain exceptions. Assessee do not dispute their tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that when duty is paid by the assessee even on exempted goods, modvat credit availed and reversed at the time of clearance of the final product cannot be demanded. Demand on these cenvat credit cannot then sustain. Accordingly, that portion of the impugned orders which have held to the contrary cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do so. Appeal on this score will succeed . So ordered. 5.5 In Appeals ST/41625/2013, ST/42103/2013, there is also denial and demand in respect of certain input service credits availed by the assessee on the grounds that related invoices did not bear invoice number and / or date. Going by the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of CCR 2004, as also plethora of decisions of higher appellate forum....