2025 (10) TMI 1412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-in-Original dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner pursuant to SCN dt. 04.04.2012 for the period June, 2007 to March, 2011 in Appeal No. ST/25807/2013. They are also in appeal against the Order-in-Original dt. 19.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner pursuant to SCN dt. 10.09.2012 for the period April, 2011 to March, 2012 in Appeal No. ST/26535/2013. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants had undertaken construction of Married Accommodation Project for Military Engineering Services (MES), which involved construction of residential quarters for military personnel during the period January, 2007 to March, 2011 and also for the period April, 2011 to March, 2012. The department felt that they have provided taxable serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 05.07.2006, wherein, it was clarified that the service tax was not applicable on construction of residential quarters for Army personnel as the layout does not require approval by an authority under any law. He has also submitted that demand is barred by limitation and that in any case for the period prior to 01.07.2010, such activities are not leviable to service tax as held by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs Pragati Edifice [2019-TIOL-3095-CESTAT Hyd]. 4. On the other hand, learned AR has mostly reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. Since issues in both the appeals are common, we are taking up both the appeals together for disposal. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The short qu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 01/2006 was not extended for allowing the abatement. 8. We find there is force in the findings of the Commissioner that they are not the contractors who were providing services to the Army personnel and they were providing services to their main contractors M/s. Maytas Infra Pvt Ltd and M/s. Ramky Infrastructure Ltd and therefore, they were liable to pay service tax. We find that in the case of CST, New Delhi Vs Melange Developers Private Limited [2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 116 (Tri. - LB)], the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has considered the issue of payment of service tax by a sub-contractor to the main contractor keeping in view the various judgments in this regard and, inter alia, held that they are required to pay service tax. Furt....