TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant for the period 11/06 to 06/09 under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and equal amount of penalty under section 78 and also penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on M/s Saiteja Constructions, the appellants herein, under section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the construction activity, inter-alia, construction of non-commercial motive buildings, residential buildings for the government and they entered into an agreement with Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited for construction of 992 residential houses of (G+1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the contract between the appellant and the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited involves both supply of material and labour and is aptly classifiable under the category of "Works Contract Service" rather than "Construction of Residential Complex Service" which was not liable for service tax as Works Contract Service was not taxable prior to 01.06.2007, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited as reported at [2015(39)S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)]. He further submitted that the demand made after 01.06.2007 under the category of "COCS" would not sustain as the only possible classification is "Works Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal) and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported at [2012(25)S.T.R. J154 (S.C.). (ii) A.S. Sikarwar vs. CCE, Indore [2012(28)S.T.R. 479 (Tri.-Del.)]. (iii) Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2018(15)G.S.T.L. 345 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in [2018(15) G.S.T.L. J120 (S.C.)]. 7. He also submitted that the residential houses constructed by the appellant were meant for weaker section of the society for their dwelling purpose as part of welfare scheme of the State Government. These units were allotted and not sold. He also submitted that the extended period of limitation was wrongly revoked in the present case as the issue involves interpretation of the provisions. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income as auxiliary business service is indisputable in view of the contents of the show cause notice and therefore in the absence of any notice issued to the respondent in view of the provisions of Section 73, it is clear that imposition of tax and consequently interest and penalty cannot be sustained and the same has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal. As no order to treat the income as Business Auxiliary Service had been passed without proposing the same to the respondent in the show cause notice, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified and substantial question of law has to be answered against the revenue". 10. Further, we find that in the case of Prime Developers Limited vs. CCE [2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD.], the Divisio....