TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax, was not paying service tax. It is their case that they had completed some of the construction activities as on 01.07.2010 with some of the buyers not paying service tax even though complete. The Revenue disagreeing with the above stand of the appellant, issued Show Cause Notices proposing to determing the service tax for the periods from May 2008 to September 2009 and from October 2009 to June 2010 in view of the amendment brought in with effect from 01.07.2010. Thereafter, the Original Authority confirmed the proposals made in the above Show Cause Notices vide Order impugned herein. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the present appeals before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Consultant Shri. P. C. Anand appeared on behalf of the assessee/appellant while Ld. ADC (AR) Shri. A. Cletus appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra as the same has already been considered and laid to rest by the decision of CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s/ Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 for tax demand was specifically ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the taxat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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. 26,88,611/- 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 p....