TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or registration and deposited service tax along with interest. They however claimed credit of the said service tax. During the impugned period they were availing exemption under Notification No. 15/2004 - ST under which there was exemption from service tax in excess of 33% of the value of the services and subsequent analogous Notification No. 1/ 2006 - ST subject to the condition that cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods or cenvat credit of service tax on input service used for providing such service shall not be availed. Whereas the Appellant while availing said exemption paid service tax by utilising credit of tax paid on GTA Services. For paying service tax in March'2006 on Industrial construction service, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined same and are classified under "Works Contract Service" from 1.06.2007 and therefore the same activity were not covered nor taxable under any other category prior to 01.06.2007. He relies upon the judgments in case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), Wexco Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (48) STR 457 (Ker.), B.R. Kohli Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) GSTL 182 (TRI) and Sugandha Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (9) GSTL 399 (TRI), Vistar Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (44) STR 675, Zee Telefilms Ltd. He submits that the credit of service tax of input service availed by them was for the period Jan'2005 to Feb'2006. The credit was availed in March'2006 as the service tax was paid in March'2006. The availment of credit was not debarred in exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) GSTL 415 (TRI) wherein it was held that from 01.06.2007 appellant can classify services under "Works Contract" and not prior to that. He thus supports the findings of the Appellate and adjudication authority. 4. The Ld. Counsel for Appellant later also filed submission that the CESTAT, Mumbai had allowed their appeal to the effect that the construction activities of the Appellant were not liable for service tax prior to 01.06.2007. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. Admittedly the Appellant were registered under the category of construction service and no dispute was raised by them regarding classification of service. Even though the category of "Works Contract" came into effect from 01.06.2007, they applied for said ....