TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside the demand prior to 1.6.2007 and upheld the demand along with interest and penalties for the remaining period under works contract service. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the period involved in this appeal is prior to March 2009. He 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. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeal) has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice in confirming the demand under works contract service whereas the show cause notice has proposed to demand under commercial or industrial construction service. He also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. After hearing both sides, it is br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontracts 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. He took support of the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' - 'general things do not derogate special things'. The counsel for appellants have submitted that as per Section 65A of the Act ibid, classif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, 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 material. Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is eligible for abatement of 67% of the value of the goods is in itself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted 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 liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract." d. In the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commis....