2024 (3) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ticed that the appellant had discharged service tax till September 2008 for the services rendered under Construction of Residential Complex Service (CRCS for short) and Work Contract Service (WCS); upon enquiry the appellant appears to have informed that their customers did not pay service tax and hence, the same was not paid from October 2008 onwards. 3. The above resulted in the issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 13.01.2011 wherein, the issuing authority namely the Commissioner of service tax having noticed the various projects undertaken by the appellant and various agreements entered into by the appellant with land owner/s in some cases and joint venture/development agreements in some, entertained a doubt that from the natur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it that the period of dispute is October 2008 to June 2010 which is prior to the introduction of explanation to Section 65 (105) (ZZZH) in the Finance Act 2010, whereby the liability has been fastened inter alia on the builder. In this regard, she has also relied on the following judgements / orders of various judicial fora: i. M/s. Jain Housing & Construction Limited - Final Order Nos.40077-40079/23 dated 24.02.2023 ii. Commissioner of Service Tax Vs M/s. Jain Housing and Construction Limited -Civil Appeal Diary No.31457/2023 iii. Krishna Homes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 881 9 (Tri. Delhi) iv. Commissioner of Customs C. Excise and ST, Vishakapattinam - I Vs. Pragathi Edi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order. We find that undisputedly the service rendered by the appellant is clearly in the nature of works contract since in respect of all the projects undertaken by it, the agreements itself clearly specify that it was for the developer to use standard materials for construction. Further, the Revenue has not at all disputed that the appellant was only a builder and hence, it is clear that the appellant, as a builder/developer had provided the work contract services and the period involved is prior to 01.07.2010, which is before the introduction of explanation to Section 65 (105) (ZZZH) vide Finance Act, 2010. 10. In this regard, we have the benefit of the order of principal Bench of CE....