TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lambakkam Residential complex 2.1 On scrutiny of records, it came to be noticed that the projects were joint venture nature and the appellants provided construction activities to land owners in lieu of relinquishment of their right over the UDS in land as per the agreement. It appeared from the nature of terms of the agreement that the appellant and the land owner are service provider and service recipient respectively and consequently the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the construction activities provided to the land owner. However, though the appellant had discharged service tax in respect of construction activities to the buyers, they had not discharged service tax on landowner share of construction. It was also noticed that they have not discharged service tax on construction charges received during the year 2004 - 05 and 2008 - 09 and also they had not paid appropriate tax on Pacifica Tech Park. Show cause notices were issued proposing to demand service tax on construction services along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalties. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are purely services and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1.6.2007, demand in respect of composite contracts would fall under works contract service only. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- "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, constructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 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 Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuted by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o ordered. 5.2 The Ld. Counsel has been at pains to point out that on-going projects which were only in the nature of works contract prior to 01.04.2007 cannot be brought under different category of Construction Services and CICS subsequently. We find merit in his arguments. The SCN has proposed demand of service tax liability only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed 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....