2019 (6) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice No.43/2007 dt. 27/09/2007 involving the period from 10/09/2004 to 30/11/2005 and also confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 14,94,763/- with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section s76, 77 and 78 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the second show-cause notice No.20/2008 dt. 21/04/2008 for the period from 01/12/2005 to 31/03/2007. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are construction contractors engaged in the field of construction of commercial and residential complexes. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Department that the appellant is not paying the service tax as per the various provisions of the Act, records were summoned and statements of Managing Director were recorded and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the service tax is not applicable on works contract service provided by the appellant. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. [2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "a works contract is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for services simplicite recognized by the world of commerce and law as such, and has to be taxed separately as such". Further Apex Court has held that service tax cannot be levied on indivisible works contracts prior to the introduction on 01/06/2007". He further submitted that once the activity of the appellant falls under the works contract service, then the activi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order is also wrong because the service tax liability has been computed including the value of free supply of material which is not legal and proper in terms of the decision in Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi [2013(32) STR 49 (Tri LB)] case. The learned counsel also submitted that the extended period of limitation has wrongly been invoked for the subsequent show-cause notice in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE, AP [2006(197) ELT 465 (SC)]. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, the activities undertaken by the appe....