TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lculated first and then abatement should be taken on such value. 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 in the first appeal. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. However the adjudicating authority dropped the demand in respect of the second appeal and the department preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and upheld the demand. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ms. D. Naveena, ld. counsel appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the period of dispute involved in these appeals is prior to March 2009. She submitted that the entire demand is unsustainable as the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of works contract service involving execution of composite contracts. Therefore, the entire demand of service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction service is unsustainable. She also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after. Our view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007. 7.11 The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus has tried to counter this contention by stating that works contract service is service / activity which would be of a general nature whereas the construction activities defined in Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, Construction of Complex Service and Construction of Residential Complex etc. are of special nature. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity." b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2018-TIOL-360- CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- "7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract.' 10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007. 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial construction service'. It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is lia....