2019 (3) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant provided various services such as construction of boundary wall, sewerage and drainage system, roads, laying of pipeline etc. Such services were provided in the residential complexes being constructed by M/s Hansal Properties and Infrastructure, Sahara India Ltd., and Stadia Landmark. Since above services were provided in relation to construction of complex, Revenue took the view that the activity is taxable under the category of Construction of Residential Complex Services falling under Section 65 (30a) read with Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994. For demand of service tax for the period of dispute, Revenue issued Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2011 which was adjudicated and finalised by issue of the impugned Order-in-Orig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant had been put on notice through Show Cause Notice proposing demand of service tax under the category of Construction of Complex Service but is covered under the WCS, as per Larsen and Turbo decision (supra). In this connection, relied upon various case laws including; (a) Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar Vs. CCEST [2017(TIOL) 3230-CESTAT-MUM] (b) Shree Mohangarh Construction Co. VS CCE, Jaipur-II vide Final Order No. 51322-51323/2018 dated 12.04.2018. 4. Learned AR justified the impugned order with the submission that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Larsen and Tubro Ltd. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the appeal record. ....