9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1329 - AT - Service TaxConstruction Services - Construction of Residential Complex - indivisible composite contract with buyers - period April 2007 to January 2010 - Held that - Similar facts have been addressed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai & Ors. 2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI and after considering various decisions, it has been held that the demand will have to be made under Works Contract Service - the demand raised is not sustainable and hence set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Demand for service tax, interest, and penalty under 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' - Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming demand - Applicability of Works Contract Service - Indivisible composite contract with buyers. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand service tax, interest, and penalty for the period April 2007 to January 2010, classifying the activity under 'Construction of Residential Complex Service.' The Order-in-Original dated 26.07.2011 confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The appellant filed the present appeal challenging this decision. During the hearing, both parties presented their arguments, and the Tribunal examined the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original. It was noted that the demand was raised for services related to the 'Construction of Residential Complex' and involved an indivisible composite contract with buyers. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, where it was held that demand for service tax on composite works contracts cannot be sustained under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex Service' post-1.6.2007. The Tribunal found that the demand in the current case was not sustainable based on the precedent cited and the lack of distinguishing arguments or contrary decisions presented by the Revenue. Consequently, the demand and the Order-in-Original were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 24.01.2019.
|
