Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (11) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2011 confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and thereby classified the activity of the appellant as falling under the category of Construction of Residential Complex. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, who, vide impugned Order dated 30.01.2012 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant thereby upholding the classification under Construction of Residential Complex. The lower appellate authority also further held that the appellant was not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Hence, the appellant is in appeal before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. M. N. Bharathi appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ld. ADC (AR) Shri. A. Cletus appeared on behalf of the Revenue. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials placed on record and have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. Advocate. 3. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ese appeals. The activities of the appellants will therefore continue to be in the nature of composite works contract services and hence even after 1.6.2007 for the periods disputed in these appeals they cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service as proposed in the show cause notices and confirmed in the impugned orders. 7.8 On the contrary, being composite works contracts, they will necessarily fall within the ambit of works contract service as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid. It is possibly with this intent in mind that the lawmakers have included in the definition of works contract, erection and commissioning service, commercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey projects including EPC projects within the definition of Works Contract Service. 7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:- 'State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date.' 7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the Act, the same activity as a composite works contract will require to be brought under section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (c). For both these categories for the definition of residential complex, the definition given in section 65(105)(91a) will have to be adopted as discussed above will have to be taken into account. 7.13 We find sustenance in arriving at this conclusion by a number of decisions of the Tribunal in which it has held as under:- a. In the case of Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Swadeshi Construction Company - 2018-TIOL-1096-CESTAT-DEL, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- '7. We note that in the present case, the SCN was issued on 27.05.2011. On that date, both the tax entries, namely, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Works Contract Service, were available in the Finance Act, 1994. The SCN did mention this in the first para itself. However, the proposal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.' c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem - 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:- '9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus '24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines "taxable service" as "any service provided". All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered 5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So ordered.' 8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying o....