2024 (6) TMI 1181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch of the projects were of the nature of indivisible composite contracts involving both supply of materials as well as construction activity. Therefore, it is their case that their activity could not be classified under 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' ('CRCS' for short) as characterized by the department for the levy of service tax. 2. During the year in respect of the project by name Wenlock Woods, the original authority had held that the construction of 12 individual residential units having common facilities, common compound and common gateway attracted service tax under CRCS. It is the case of the assessee, that the above service provided by them, was under Works Contract Service and therefore, demand raised under CRCS ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., according to them, has specifically been permitted per CBEC Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007. 5. In respect of the project by name Crimson Dawn, it is contended that they had paid service tax under composition scheme on the advance payment received towards contract service along with interest. However, the adjudicating authority has held that they were not entitled to avail composition scheme for work contract since they had availed CENVAT credit on inputs/input services. This demand has also been raised contrary to the reasons proposed in the Show Cause Notice which was different and hence, same is not sustainable in law. 6. In the respect of another project by name Saffron Summers, it is submitted that the demand of servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his very issue has been considered by the coordinate Bench, in the case of Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. (supra) as contended by the learned Advocate, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above position of law, the demand under CRCS as proposed is not sustainable and accordingly, this ground of the appeal succeeds. 10. We have carefully considered the show cause notice, proposals therein, and the confirmation of the demand in the Order in Original and it is clear that the proposal was only under CRCS. Here also, there is no dispute that there was supply of materials as well as the service of construction and hence, the same could only be taxed under WCS. However, the proposal in the show cause notice....