TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services'. Based on the intelligence, the department initiated inquiries into the construction work undertaken by the Appellant. On scrutiny of the documents/correspondences/ information and the work orders issued by civic authorities/agencies, it was observed that the Appellant were engaged in construction of various projects. Accordingly, the demand of service tax under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Services' for the period from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2010 was raised with regard to following three work orders: 1) Construction of 54 No. HIG (Super) Flats in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana 2) Construction of 60 No. MIG-II Flats in Sukhdev Enclave Scheme on Hambran Road, Ludhiana 3) Construction of 84 No. LIG Flats in Sukhdev Enclave Scheme on Hambran Road, Ludhiana On these allegations, a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 18.04.2011 was issued to the Appellant. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2011, confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest after giving abatement @67% under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 to raise the demand on service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Lal Gupta vs. CCE, Delhi-III - (2023) 9 Centax 199 (Tri. Chan.) * Ludhiana Builders vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2020 (37) GSTL 231 (Tri. Chan.) 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shantanu Kumar Meena, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the department though has admitted in the show cause notice that the Appellant completed the projects with materials and accordingly, while computing the service tax liability, exemption for the same @67% has already been granted under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 to raise the demand on service part only and the same has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and further has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. 5.1 He further submits that during the disputed period, the Appellant were not registered with the department and had also not filed ST-3 returns as were required under Sections 69 & 70 of the Finance Act. 5.2 He further submits that when the Appellant are now admitting that their activity falls under the 'works contract service' and they have also got themselves registered with the service tax department w.e.f. 31.03.2010 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract." 8. Further, we find that the works contract service has been introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and the same was not taxable prior thereto. We also find that introduction of a new entry for the purpose of levy of tax presupposes that the same was not covered by any of the pre-existing entries. 9. We further find that this Tribunal has considered the identical issue in the case of Raj Inter Decor Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The main contention of the appellant is that they are rendering composite services and as such, they are covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L& T (supra). We find that the case of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of the appellant, facts of the case being identical, the ratio of the same requires to be followed. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have rendered service under a composite contract and as such are not liable to pay service tax for the period before 1-6-2007; the demand for the subsequent period i.e. after 1-6-2007 cannot also be sustained having been raised under a wrong Head. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that whereas the value of the material involved is 80%, they have availed benefit of only 67% rebate and have paid duty on 33% whereas they could have paid duty on 20% of the contract value; learned Counsel fairly submits that they are not seeking refund of the excess tax they have paid. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the contention of the Department and the appellant's contention has considerable force." 10. Further, we may also refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bajrang Lal Gupta (supra), wherein the identical issue was involved and the Tribunal after considering the submissions and ratios of the various decisions, has held as under....