2025 (9) TMI 755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore. By this impugned order the Lower Appellate Authority has upheld the Order-in-Original No. 16/2015(DC) dated 25.08.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Coimbatore III Division which confirmed demand of service tax of Rs.51,912/- along with applicable interest and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. It is noted that the Appellants have registered themselves for taxable services of "Construction of Complex Services" and "Work Contract Services". The appellants started two residential flat promotion ventures which were named 'THE PARK' and 'VESTAL'. For both these projects th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod January 2007 to June 2007 is not towards any services rendered. iii. The loans and advances received have nothing to do with the services rendered and the department has also failed to prove that the amount had been received towards the services rendered. 7. The Ld. Advocate Ms. G. Mathanghi appeared on behalf of the Appellant and re-iterated the arguments incorporated in the grounds of appeal. She has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for the early periods issued vide 2025-(3)-TMI-9-CESTAT CHENNAI. 8. It was ordered therein that upto 01.07.2010, the classification of service would remain the same as declared by the service provider but post 01.07.2010, the tax would be chargeable und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s leviable in view of decision in L&T Ltd. (supra). In any case, it is an admitted fact on record that during the periods under dispute, the appellant continued to remit the service tax under WCS and hence there was no reason for the Revenue not to accept the same. Hence we are of the view that in the light of decision of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra), which has been followed by various Benches of Tribunal across India, the liability as under CRCS cannot sustain. For this reason, we set aside the demands in the impugned orders and since the issue of interpretation was involved, there cannot be any scope of to allege suppression or whatsoever and hence no penalty could be exigible and hence demand and penalties are set aside." 13. We find ....