TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransfer of property in goods during the execution of the same. 2.2 Two Show Cause Notices dated 24.03.2010 and 22.10.2010 were issued by the Department proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 3,22,42,643/- for the period March 2006 to June 2009 and Rs. 61,37,445/- for the period June 2009 to June 2010 under Construction of Residential Complex Service along with applicable interest and penalties. The proposals made in the above Show Cause Notices were confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai vide impugned Order-in-Original Nos. 16 & 17/2012 dated 29.03.2012 against which the present appeals have been filed by the assessee/appellant before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing Ld. Advocate Ms. Radhika Chandra Sekhar appeared for the assessee/appellant while Ld. AC (AR) Shri. B. Balamurugan represented the Department. 4.1 During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant is engaged in the execution of 'works contracts', which is subjected to service tax in terms of Section 65(105)(zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 only from 01.06.2007 and there could not be a demand for the said services prior to that date. She furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment in Larsen & Toubro, such composite works contract then will not be liable to service tax levy prior to 1.6.2007. On the same ratio, such composite contracts even for the period after 1.6.2007 disputed in these appeals will still have to be held as composite works contract only and not pure service simpliciter contracts that could be classified under commercial or industrial construction service, or construction of complex service. To put in another way, to merit being classified as CICS or CCS, the service provider concerned will be rendering only service simpliciter without any other element in them namely without any material or goods supply involved. That is definitely not the case in the facts of these 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 fal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., classification of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC's Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:- 'The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of the goods is in itself the acceptance of the fact that the contracts were executed with material. It is also on record that the Revenue has not contested these findings of the adjudicating authority before the Tribunal. If that be so, even when the Revenue authorities are accepting the facts that the contracts executed 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise as reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1361, the Tribunal has held as under:- '5.1 The payment upto 01.06.2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. So 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 ....